Testifying Part 3 – Believe What I Say
Original article: January 17, 2017 | By Sweta Tejpal | Reviewed and updated October 7, 2026
“Believe what I say” is not the legal test at a criminal trial. The Crown must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When accounts conflict, the court must consider truthfulness, accuracy and the evidence as a whole—not merely decide which witness seems more persuasive.
Credibility and reliability are related, but different
Credibility concerns honesty; reliability concerns the ability to observe, remember and describe events accurately. In R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, paragraph 82, the Supreme Court explains this distinction while emphasizing a contextual assessment of the evidence. Courts sometimes use “credibility” more broadly to include both concerns.
An honest witness can be mistaken. Consider the opportunity to observe, lighting, distance, distractions, the passage of time and how a memory was formed. A witness may accurately remember part of an event but be uncertain about another part. A disagreement or a small inconsistency does not, by itself, prove deliberate lying.
Reasonable doubt is not a choice between two stories
The framework in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 helps guard against treating a credibility dispute as a contest:
If the accused’s evidence is believed and that evidence means an essential element of the offence is not proved, the result must be an acquittal.
Even if that testimony is not believed, an acquittal is required if it nevertheless leaves a reasonable doubt.
Even if the accused’s account does not raise a doubt, the court must still ask whether the evidence it accepts proves every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rejecting an accused’s account is not, on its own, proof that the prosecution’s account is correct. The burden remains with the Crown throughout. The same standard applies in a judge-alone trial and a jury trial; deciding that guilt is merely more likely than innocence is not enough.
Look at the whole evidentiary picture
Documents, photographs, messages, recordings and other witnesses may support or contradict an account. Such material is not automatically conclusive. Authenticity, completeness, context and the opportunity to observe still matter. A short recording may omit what happened before or after it; a photograph may not show everything a witness could see.
Cross-examination can explore differences between accounts and earlier statements, as well as limits on observation or memory. The significance of an inconsistency depends on its nature and context. Nervousness or a confident delivery should not replace a careful assessment of the evidence.
Prepare accurate evidence
Review your own recollection with counsel and distinguish memory from information learned afterwards.
Identify uncertainty honestly; do not fill gaps to make an account sound more complete.
Preserve relevant records in their original form and give counsel the full context, not selected excerpts.
Explain any earlier statement or correction openly so that counsel can assess its significance.
The decision whether an accused should testify is addressed in Part 1. Practical communication is addressed in Part 2, and memory in Part 6. None of these articles substitutes for advice about the evidence in your particular case.
Continue the Testifying series
Part 3 — Believe What I Say (this article)
Related guidance
For advice about your circumstances, contact our office. This article provides general information, not legal advice.