Where the prosecution relies on an allegedly false statement as evidence of consciousness of guilt and the falsity of that statement is indispensable to a finding of guilt, a theoretical risk of circular reasoning arises but does not necessarily require a direction that the falsity be proved beyond reasonable doubt before consciousness of guilt inferences can be drawn — the adequacy of the direction depends on the circumstances. A separate [name withheld] direction is not required for alleged lies where the trial judge has specifically directed the jury that only identified matters may be used as consciousness of guilt evidence and has given a comprehensive [name withheld] direction covering the same ground. Per [name withheld], the Crown ought not to rely on an alleged lie as consciousness of guilt evidence where the only way to prove the lie is by proving the prosecution case.
The full text is available to signed-in members.