A lies direction is a judicial instruction telling a jury that it may, in certain narrow circumstances, treat a defendant's deliberate lies as evidence supporting guilt. It is also called an Edwards direction, after the High Court's reasoning in Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193. The direction does not automatically follow whenever a defendant is caught in an untruth. Courts impose strict conditions before one is given, and getting those conditions wrong is a recognised ground of appeal.
What the Edwards direction actually says
The core instruction tells the jury three things. First, it must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did in fact lie. Second, it must be satisfied that the lie was deliberate, not the product of confusion or poor memory. Third, it must find that the only rational reason for the lie was a consciousness of guilt in relation to the charged offence.
That third element is the critical one. Jurors are told that people lie for many reasons: embarrassment, fear of unrelated consequences, a desire to protect someone else, or simply to appear more credible. None of those reasons permits the jury to treat the lie as evidence of guilt. The direction exists precisely to fence off that reasoning error.
Without the direction, a jury might reason loosely: "he lied about X, therefore he must be guilty." With it, the jury is told they can only go there if they first eliminate every innocent explanation for the lie. That is a demanding standard, and in practice the probative value of a lie is often less than it first appears.
When a judge must give the direction
A lies direction is mandatory when the prosecution relies on a defendant's lies as independently probative of guilt. If the Crown simply uses prior inconsistent statements to undermine credibility, no direction is required. The trigger is the prosecution's express invitation to the jury to treat a lie as a standalone item of evidence pointing toward guilt.
Judges give lies directions in a range of situations. A defendant who gave a false alibi to police and then abandoned it at trial presents the clearest case. So does a defendant who told an early version of events that was internally inconsistent and contradicted by objective evidence, such as CCTV footage or phone records. In those scenarios, the Crown often argues that the lie itself shows the defendant knew the truth was damaging.
The direction becomes particularly significant in cases built on circumstantial evidence. When there is no confession, no eyewitness, and no physical exhibit that directly places the defendant at the scene, each piece of supporting evidence carries more weight. A Farquharson direction governs how juries reason from circumstantial evidence to guilt, and a lies direction can sit alongside it when one of those circumstances is a deliberate untruth.
How the direction is given in practice
Counsel on both sides typically address the lies direction in their written submissions before closing addresses. The prosecution identifies each lie it relies on and explains what innocent motive the jury should be asked to exclude. The defence argues either that no direction should be given at all, or that the direction must be worded in a way that emphasises the many reasons why innocent people sometimes lie to police.
The judge then crafts the direction, usually during the summing-up. The better practice is to address each alleged lie individually rather than giving a generic instruction and leaving the jury to apply it. A direction pitched too broadly risks the jury treating any false statement as damning, which is exactly the error the rule exists to prevent.
Defence lawyers sometimes invite the judge to decline to give the direction at all, on the basis that the jury might treat it as judicial endorsement of the prosecution's theory. This is a tactical judgment. If the Crown has made the lie a centrepiece of its closing, refusing the direction may leave the jury without guidance. The right call depends on the specific evidence and the overall shape of the trial.
The difference between a lies direction and a tendency to lie direction
These two directions are often confused, but they serve distinct functions. A lies direction addresses a specific lie told by the defendant during or around the criminal transaction being tried. A tendency to lie direction addresses prior evidence suggesting the defendant has a general disposition toward dishonesty, admitted under tendency rules, and tells the jury the limited purpose for which that evidence can be used.
In plain terms: a lies direction is about what the defendant said in this case, while a tendency to lie direction is about what the defendant has done in other contexts. Both impose strict limits on how the jury can use what they hear, but they arise from different evidentiary foundations and carry different risks if misapplied.
Grounds of appeal arising from lies directions
Misdirection on a lies direction is a well-established ground of appeal. Common complaints include a judge who gave the direction without first identifying a rational basis for finding the lie demonstrated consciousness of guilt, or who gave the direction in terms so broad that the jury could treat any false statement as guilt-pointing.
Failure to give the direction when the prosecution had squarely relied on a lie as evidence of guilt is also appellable. In that situation, the jury was left to reason without a framework, and there is an obvious risk the reasoning went wrong.
The remedy on appeal depends on how significant the lie was to the Crown's overall case. Where the lie was peripheral, an appellate court may apply the proviso and dismiss the appeal despite the error. Where the lie was a central plank, a new trial is more likely. Ann Valos Criminal Law has over 15 years of experience identifying and running these grounds, and the firm's accredited specialists scrutinise every direction given at trial when advising on appeal prospects.
What a defence lawyer should do when a lies direction is proposed
Early engagement is essential. Once the judge indicates a lies direction may be given, the defence should pin down exactly which statements the Crown relies on, demand particulars of the alleged innocent explanations the jury is being asked to exclude, and test whether the prosecution can establish that the defendant actually knew the statement was false at the time.
The direction should never be left to the judge to draft without input. Proposed jury directions handed up in writing give the defence a record of what was sought and what was refused, which becomes important if the matter goes further. Ann Valos Criminal Law treats every direction given to the jury as part of the overall defence strategy, not an administrative formality.
If you are facing a trial where the prosecution is likely to rely on statements you made to police, getting advice on how a lies direction might operate in your case is a practical first step. The framing of that direction can determine whether a single conversation with investigators becomes a piece of evidence pointing toward conviction.