In criminal trials, particularly those involving sexual offenses, the question “Why would she lie?” can seem compelling at first glance. This rhetorical question, often posed by prosecutors during closing arguments, appears to cut through complex evidence with a simple appeal to common sense: if there’s no obvious reason for a complainant to fabricate serious allegations, shouldn’t we believe them?
However, the Victorian Judicial College’s Criminal Charge Book explicitly warns against this practice. Paragraph 20 of section 4.4 – Prosecution Witness’s Motive to Lie states:
“It is therefore usually inappropriate for the prosecution to raise the question ‘why would the complainant lie?’ in their final address, no matter how the issue of motive has arisen (R v RC [2004] VSCA 183).”
This guidance exists for several critical reasons. First, such questioning can inadvertently shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. In our justice system, the accused is not required to prove their innocence or explain the complainant’s motivations. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.