26 Mar What are Lies as Consciousness of Guilt?

Lies as Consciousness of Guilt: What You Need to Know

When it comes to criminal law in Australia, the concept of “consciousness of guilt” is one that can have profound implications for the accused. This legal doctrine allows certain actions, such as telling a lie, to be used as evidence that the accused knows they are guilty.

But how exactly does this work? At FEDOROV Family Lawyers, we believe that understanding this concept is crucial for anyone involved in the criminal justice system. Let’s dive into what lies as consciousness of guilt mean, how they’re used in court, and the implications for those accused of a crime.

What Are Lies as Consciousness of Guilt?
In Australia, lies told by an accused person can sometimes be used as evidence against them. This principle is commonly referred to as “Edwards Lies,” after the landmark case of Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193. In this case, the High Court of Australia articulated the circumstances in which a lie might be more than just an attack on the credibility of the accused—it could be an indication of their guilt.

Understanding Edwards Lies
The High Court in Edwards explained that while a lie generally affects the credibility of the person who tells it, a lie told by an accused can go further. In certain circumstances, a lie can be seen as inconsistent with innocence and, therefore, as an implied admission of guilt. As the Court held, “the telling of a lie may constitute evidence” if it springs from a realisation or consciousness of guilt. This means that the accused is lying because they know that the truth would convict them.

The Requirements for an Edwards Lie
However, not every lie told by an accused can be considered evidence of guilt. The High Court in Edwards laid down specific requirements that must be met for a lie to be used in this way:

1. The Lie Must Be Deliberate: The accused must have intentionally told the lie. If the lie was told out of confusion, mistake, or even panic, it cannot be used as evidence of guilt.
2. The Lie Must Relate to a Material Issue: The lie must be about something significant related to the offence, such as the accused’s whereabouts at the time of the crime or their involvement in the act itself.
3. The Lie Must Be Motivated by a Realisation of Guilt: The lie must have been told because the truth would implicate the accused in the crime. In other words, the accused must have lied out of fear that telling the truth would reveal their guilt.

These requirements ensure that not every lie will be taken as evidence of guilt, providing some protection to the accused. However, when these conditions are met, the lie can have serious consequences.

The Role of the Jury
In a criminal trial, it is ultimately up to the jury to decide whether a lie meets these criteria and whether it should be considered as evidence of guilt. The jury must weigh the evidence as a whole and determine whether the accused’s lie is more likely to indicate a consciousness of guilt or if it can be explained by some other, less culpable motivation.

This principle was highlighted in the case of Gall v R [2015] NSWCCA 69, where the court held, “… the rationale behind the need for a consciousness of guilt direction by a trial judge is that the particular conduct relied upon by the Crown, while being capable of allowing a legitimate inference of guilt, may also be readily explained by another innocent or less culpable motivation.”

However, as was noted by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Adam [1999] NSWCCA 189 “… the mere availability of another explanation for an accused’s conduct will not prevent a trial judge leaving evidence of the conduct to the jury as being evidence capable of amounting to evidence of consciousness of guilt.”

The High Court on Concealment and Guilt
The High Court’s decision in The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308 provides a powerful example of how lies and other conduct can be seen as consciousness of guilt. In this case, the accused’s efforts to conceal his wife’s body and his involvement in her death were seen by the jury as evidence of guilt. The lengths to which the accused went to cover up his actions were deemed inconsistent with innocence and were used as proof of his guilt.

Factual Falsity and Proof
For a lie to be used as consciousness of guilt, its falsity must be established. This can be done through direct evidence, such as an admission by the accused that they lied, or through circumstantial evidence. For instance, independent witnesses, photographs, or documents can prove that the accused’s statement was false.

In the case of R v Lane [2011] NSWCCA 157, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that the Trial Judge incorrectly stated that the jury could only find the accused’s Andrew Morris/Norris story to be a lie if they accepted the entirety of the Crown case. The Court of Criminal Appeal held it was for the jury to determine whether or not any of the statements were false, and if so, whether deliberately false, and whether any statement found to be false was made out of consciousness of guilt of murder.

At FEDOROV Family Lawyers, we understand the complexities and nuances of criminal law. The concept of lies as consciousness of guilt is just one of the many ways that the law seeks to uncover the truth. However, it is also a concept fraught with challenges and potential pitfalls for the accused. If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges, understanding the implications of this doctrine is crucial. Our experienced team is here to provide the guidance and defence you need in these difficult situations.