Are Witnesses Truthful?

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 45, 19 September 1930, Page 6

Are Witnesses Truthful?

ABOLITION OF THE OATH'. SYDNEY MAGISTRATE'S SUGGESTION. SOME MORK STRATFORD YIKWS. * __ "If this statement is it dees not say much for the moi'.ls oltaining in New South Wales,' said a Stratford legal gentleman, when asked by a Post representative to comment on the suggestion of. the Sydney Magistrate that the oath administered in courts of law might well be abolished as 95 per cent, of witnesses were untruthful, ■ and administering the oath merely gave them a.i opportunity to commit blasphemy. Certainly, from the loca 1 man's experience, the statement would not be true of the people who gave evidence i'a the courts in Now Zealand. His own idea was that the great majority of persons who went into the witness-box had tl\- intention of speaking the truth. In cases where different statements

were made by witnesses on opposing sides as to what had happened or what had hsen said, the difference cm:ld be accounted for by lack of Observation on tbe part of witnesses and failure on their part to form a true mental picture of what was said or done. It might be that since the act took place the witness had been turning the matter over in bis mind and had discussed it with interested parties to such an extent that in the end he could 'not (lis_ tinguish between what be had actually seen a/ad the conclusions he cad afterwards formed. As to the suggestion of doing away with the cath, the administering of tbe oath impressed on witnesses the necessity o p saying only what they were convinced was true. If there was any strength in the Sydney Magistrate's argument one might as well dispense with oaths at marriage, or at the taking office of. a Magistral!) or Justice of Peace; and even on the Governor-General taking office. Personally, he was convinced that tbe proportion of deliberate perjurers was not very large. HOT Alii. The next legal gentleman seen agreed that there was much untruthful evidence, but he could' not agree that it was wilful. He would be sorry to see the oath done away with, and preferred to treat the statement from Sydney as hot air. The existence of the wilful perjurer could not be denied, and it was impossible to deal with him. Contradictions in evidence were quite easy to explain. Incidents in football matches illustrated the point. It was frequently the case that no two persons could agree about the details of such incidents, although r:«3y might bo looking from precisely tbe same angle. Some people did not respect the oath, but very many did. Administration of the oath might not be an ideal method of securing truthful evidence, but if it was abolished something else would have t 0 be provided in its place, and, in such an important matter, any change made would need to be made gradually. It was the duty of a judge o r magistrate to take notice of witness 'demeanour in

the box—not only to note what ho said, but to note his general attitude in the box. Fortunately for the interests of justice, many men could not "pitch a tale" without plainly shov.«ing by their manner that they are doing so. In the case of a conflict of evidence, the Court would he inclined to accept the version of the wit'ness whose attitudei n the box best stood scrutiny. OX HIS WOKD. The last person seen expressed the opinion that 'nothing like 95 per cent, of witnesses were untruthful. He had always been against the form of oath—it was more or less a relic: of barbarism. The word of a witness should be as binding on him as an oath, a<ad breach of his word should have consequences equal to those of following breach of the oath. The foundation of the Sydney Magistrate's view, no doubt, was the fact that it was seldom possible | to get two witnesses to give the J same account of a happeni'.ig or a conversation. No two stories will exactly coincide. Naturally, a mnu's own characteristics and outlook would colour his evidence to a certain exterit. Plenty f people deceived themselves as to what was dene or said. Two witnesses might tell different stories and both might, believe they are stating the exact fact, whereas (neither might lie right. The aholtica of the oath, however, would not check perjury, which would continue whatever procedure was followed, and the witness who misdirected himself under oath would continue to do so if he was on his word.