A trial judge's finding that a witness is 'not credible' and has 'exaggerated' symptoms may, depending on context, be characterised as a finding about reliability rather than deliberate dishonesty, and where the risk of such a finding is apparent from cross-examination and raised during submissions, no separate warning to counsel is required. The distinction between reliability and credibility findings is critical to whether procedural fairness obligations are triggered. In serious injury applications under s 134AB, the adequacy of reasons must be assessed by reference to the issues agitated at trial, and a judge is not required to make specific findings as to the precise nature of an organic injury where the onus is on the applicant to disentangle organic from non-organic contributions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 26 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 26 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.