Revision Questions a) What does 'credibility evidence' mean? b) How has 5 106 altered the Common Law ' Inality rule'? c) When is credibility evidence allowed in cross-examination? Give examples. d) If the prosecution wanted to submit credibility evidence against an accused. what procedures would the prosecution need to apply and how might defence counsel seek to protect their client? e) What happened and what was held by the Court in El-Azzi? f) Will a prior inconsistent statement be credibility evidence? How would the prior inconsistent statement be proved other than from the witness? Problem D has a son. X. On X's trial in 2010 for burglary, D gave evidence to support X's alibi that X was at home with D on the night of the burglary. In cross-examination, D admitted that her evidence in this respect was untrue. and that she had lied to protect X from the possibility of going to jail. She said that X was the only means of support for herself and his three siblings. D was, however, later charged and convicted of perjury. In 2020. P sues D in negligence arising out a car collision. D gives evidence of what happened in the collision. In cross-examination, P's counsel asks D: Q: Do you think of yourself as a truthful person? A. Yes. Q: Would you tell a lie to a court? A' No. 0 Were you convicted of perjury in 2010? a) Suppose you are counsel for D, and, obviously. you would rather that D was not required to answer this question. How would you frame one or more objections to it being asked? b) Assume that P's counsel does ask the question about D's perjury and D answers "Yes\". What use could P's counsel make of this answer when addressing the fact-finder on how the fact- nder should assess the evidence given by D as to what happened in the collision? c) Assuming that P's counsel does ask the question and D answers "Yes". what evidence might D's counsel seek to elicit in re-examination of D? What use could D's counsel make of this evidence to rebut the submissions that P's counsel might make in (b)? Discussion Should the credibility rule be abolished