Cross Examination: Handling the truth – the ethical way

Cross-examination is often highly dramatic and confrontational. In fact, many lawyers enter courtrooms with combat-like mindsets on how to effectively elicit the ‘truth’ from witnesses.

But at what point do these tactics become improper?

In GHI v PP [2024] SGHC 220, the Singapore High Court interestingly cautioned lawyers against raising cross questions that perpetuate victim shaming/blaming, particularly when dealing with vulnerable witnesses.

In dismissing an appeal brought by a tutor who was sentenced for molesting a 10-year-old girl at tuition centre, the Judge issued the following reminder:-

“It should be borne in mind that the purpose of cross-examination is not to cause unnecessary discomfort to, harass or abuse a witness. In cases of sexual offences especially, unwarranted questioning of the victim’s credibility, delving into irrelevant personal history or insinuating blame can not only re-traumatise the victim but also perpetuate harmful stereotypes about sexual violence. This approach can dissuade other victims from coming forward for fear of being subjected to a similar ordeal. It is too frequently overlooked that the purpose of cross-examination is to elicit evidence from the witness to support the cross-examiner’s case…”

On the facts of this case, despite finding that questions were raised about the victim’s attire, the Judge found that they were relevant in establishing the actual act of assault itself.

As such, it should not be forgotten - no matter which side of the bar table - lawyers have an overriding duty to the court to conduct cross-examinations respectfully and ethically, ensuring that witnesses feel safe to provide truthful testimony. On this note, the Judge remarked as follows:-

“While cross-examination is a means of ensuring that the evidence of a witness is properly tested when in conflict with the case of the party cross-examining, it is not designed to be an opportunity for theatricality nor for an advocate to demonstrate a flair for antagonistic or aggressive, repetitive and oppressive questioning.”

In other words, effective lawyering is not about putting on the best show. Instead, it is about balancing the client’s case with ethical responsibilities, in the pursuit of truth and justice.

See grounds of judgment here:

https://tinyurl.com/2s4npvbb