[2003] SGHC 10

My intention of going there was not to traffic. I do not know the haversack contained drug. Roseley also does not know anything about this matter. I hope the judge would consider my explanation.

I am innocent. I do not know anything about this matter. I met Rosdi by chance and we walked together towards my car. It was then that I was arrested. I hope the court will consider my case.

To be capable of amounting to corroboration the lie told out of court must first of all be deliberate. Secondly it must relate to a material issue. Thirdly the motive for the lie must be a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth. The jury should in appropriate cases be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just cause, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family. Fourthly the statement must be clearly shown to be a lie by evidence other than that of the accomplice who is to be corroborated, that is to say by admission or by evidence from an independent witness.

The distinction between relying on an accused’s lies as evidence of guilt and forming a view that his evidence is not creditworthy because of certain lies is an extremely important one. As pointed out by the court in R v Lucas, an accused person may lie for a variety of reasons not connected with guilt of the offences. As such, it is dangerous to convict an accused person based on the fact that he lied, unless the criteria in Er Joo Nguang v PP [2000] 2 SLR 645 are satisfied.