The court considered the circumstances under which the defendant had lied, and Lucas direction was to be given: ‘As there seems to be at the moment a tendency in one appeal after another to assert that there has been no direction, or an inadequate direction, as to lies, it may be helpful if we conclude by summarising the circumstances in which, in our judgment, a Lucas direction is usually required. There are four such circumstances but they may overlap:
1. Where the defence relies on an alibi.
2. Where the judge considers it desirable or necessary to suggest that the jury should look for support or corroboration of one piece of evidence from other evidence in the case, and amongst that other evidence draws attention to lies told, or allegedly told, by the defendant.
3. Where the prosecution seek to show that something said, either in or out of the court, in relation to a separate and distinct issue was a lie, and to rely on that lie as evidence of guilt in relation to the charge which is sought to be proved.
4. Where although the prosecution have not adopted the approach to which we have just referred, the judge reasonably envisages that there is a real danger that the jury may do so.’
Citations:
[1996] 1 Cr App R 163
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Goodway CACD 11-Aug-1993
The judge is to give a ‘Lucas’ direction, if the fact of a defendant’s lie is to be relied upon by the prosecution to challenge the veracity of other evidence given by the defendant. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Philip Joshua Rahming v The Queen PC 20-May-2002
(Bahamas) The case was an appeal against a conviction for murder on the basis of the incorrect direction from the judge as to manslaughter and murder, and the failure to give a lies direction.
Held: The failure to bring the defendant before a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.182199