UNTRUTHFUL EVIDENCE ON DIFFERENT ISSUES: ‘LUCAS DIRECTION’ IN IMMIGRATION CASES
I note in that regard the conventional warning which judges give themselves that a person may be untruthful about one matter (in this case his history) without necessarily being untruthful about another (in this case the existence of family life with the foster mother’s family), knows as a ‘Lucas discretion ‘ (derived in part from the judgment of the CACD in R v Lucas QB 720 per Lord Lane CJ at 723C). The classic formulation of the principle is said to be this: if a court concludes that a witness has lied about one matter, it does not follow that he has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons, for example, out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure. That is because a person’s motives may be different as respects different questions. The warning is not to be found in the judgments before this court. This is perhapsAdam Pipe (No 8 Chambers)
A useful opportunity to emphasise that the utility of the self-direction is of general application and not limited to family and criminal cases.
Adam Pipe (Barrister at No 8 Chambers) has given permission to use recent case updates on our website.