Chapter 6 Veracity and propensity evidence

R11 We recommend amending s 37(5) by deleting the words “whether generally or in the proceeding”, which would have the effect of making clear the distinction that was intended to be drawn by the Law Commission in relation to veracity evidence, namely, that there be “no rule that prevents a party from offering evidence contradicting or challenging a witness’s answers given in response to cross-examination directed solely to truthfulness ….”

R12 We recommend amending s 37(3)(b) to remove the words “dishonesty or” to leave the courts free to consider on the facts of individual cases whether the circumstances of prior offending really are substantially helpful in assessing veracity.

R13 We recommend amending s 38 to clarify that the defendant only “opens the door” to evidence about his or her veracity being introduced by the prosecution when he or she gives evidence in court.