BSA Section 156 — Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity

Summary

When a witness is asked a question that is only relevant because the answer might damage their character and therefore make their testimony less believable, and the witness answers that question, no evidence can be given to contradict that answer. However, if the witness gives a false answer, they can later be charged with the offence of giving false evidence.

There are two exceptions to this rule. Under Exception 1, if a witness is asked whether they have been previously convicted of any crime and they deny it, evidence of that previous conviction may be given. Under Exception 2, if a witness is asked a question that tends to question their impartiality, and they deny the facts suggested in the question, they may be contradicted.

The illustrations explain how this works. In illustration (a), a claimant in a fraud case is asked whether they had made a fraudulent claim in a previous transaction, and they deny it. Evidence to show they did make such a claim is not allowed. In illustration (b), a witness is asked whether they were dismissed from a job for dishonesty, and they deny it. Evidence to show they were dismissed for dishonesty is also not allowed.

In illustration (c), a witness says they saw a person at a certain place on a certain day. The witness is then asked whether they themselves were at a different place on that same day, and they deny it. Here, evidence to show the witness was at that different place is allowed, not to contradict the witness on a matter affecting their credit, but to contradict the original statement about seeing the person at the first place. In all these cases, if the denial was false, the witness could be charged with giving false evidence.

In illustration (d), a witness is asked whether their family had a blood feud with the family of the person against whom they are giving evidence, and they deny it. The witness may be contradicted on this point because the question tends to impeach their impartiality.

Official Text

When a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but, if he answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence. Exception 1.—If a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given of his previous conviction. Exception 2.—If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality, and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted.

Illustrations.

(a) A claim against an underwriter is resisted on the ground of fraud. The claimant is asked whether, in a former transaction, he had not made a fraudulent claim. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he did make such a claim. The evidence is inadmissible.

(b) A witness is asked whether he was not dismissed from a situation for dishonesty. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he was dismissed for dishonesty. The evidence is not admissible.

(c) A affirms that on a certain day he saw B at Goa. A is asked whether he himself was not on that day at Varanasi. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that A was on that day at Varanasi. The evidence is admissible, not as contradicting A on a fact which affects his credit, but as contradicting the alleged fact that B was seen on the day in question in Goa. In each of these cases, the witness might, if his denial was false, be charged with giving false evidence.

(d) A is asked whether his family has not had a blood feud with the family of B against whom he gives evidence. He denies it. He may be contradicted on the ground that the question tends to impeach his impartiality.

Old <-> New Code Mapping

• IEA §153 — Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity