How far can a defence barrister question the credibility of of a prosecution witness?

How far can a defence barrister go with the credibility of a prosecution witness.





For instance if they have something that can show that they have lied in the past in court related documents and made wild accusations previously ? Does the credibility of a witness stick to the events/reasons of a trial or can past dishonesty (not conviction) be brought up by the defence as reasons that the witness should not be believed ? Taking the word of someone without knowing the dishonesty of the person clearly would be something importantly missing in convicting someone wrongly,|||Dishonesty in the case in question can definitely be brought up. A situation where a person was fired for dishonesty, or charged with perjury could also be referred to The judge is not going to let the defense attorney go off on a totally different subject just to attempt to show some miscellaneous case of dishonesty.|||It depends on the ability of the barrister and limitation which the judge allows. There are many factors such as witness, relevant and many more factors. If the barrister has enough proofs to prove that the person is a dishonest then the person鈥檚 statement might not be considered. If you need any assistance from an expert barrister, visit http://www.timkendal.com/|||The barrister can take it exactly as far as the judge allows. How far that is will depend on a lot of factors. The judge has the responsibility to make sure that only relevant evidence is admitted, that it is not unduly prejudicial, and that justice is served. Honesty of a witness IS relevant.