在法庭上提供证据仍然是一个庄严的事件;因此，躺在法庭上并非如此。它带来了潜在的严重后果，包括伪证的信念（但是，如安迪库尔森检察所示，并非所有谎言都以法院达成的雇员达成了伪证，或者在CPR 32.14下藐视法庭。在一个特别直接的例子中撒上法庭的后果，Karbhari V艾哈迈德[2013] EWHC 4042（QB），被告的延迟申请修改他的案件，承认原本辩护的防御是故意虚假的，导致法官将此事直接推荐给大都会警察的经济犯罪单位。

尽管如此，认为谎言没有在法庭上讲述。实际上，截然不同但挖掘出证据的情况的案件数量没有其他推断，甚至考虑到回忆的差异，而不是至少一个方撒谎。

也许部分是为了回应这一趋势，司法态度与见证证据的转变。在民事案件中，在民事案件中，越来越多地以证人陈述的证据（以证人陈述的形式而言，越来越多地观察核心问题），而且在民事案件中，法官现在将主要文件视为实际发生的证据。虽然当代文件的重要性是什么新的 - 看看罗伯特Goff LJ的Dicta海洋霜冻- 他们的角色似乎已经提升到至少一些情况下，证人证据的实用性被认为是确定事实的手段;看到lecgatt j的判断Gestmin V Credit Suisse[2013] EWHC 3560（Comm）。

然而，更常见的是，法官寻找党的第一手账户的外部验证，例如在当代文件中;更重要的是，有理由相信证人的谎言。在Stein V Chodiev.[2014] EWHC 1201 (Comm), in a case which turned largely on the parties’ disputed accounts of meetings and oral conversations, Burton J described this process as looking for a “a hook, upon which to peg a conclusion, or to give corroboration to one side or the other, which is not dependent upon the vagaries of recollection”. In subsequent related proceedings, in which the defendants sought to set aside Burton J’s judgment on the basis it was obtained by false evidence given by the claimant, the same Judge set out what he would have done had he taken the view that both sides’ evidence was dishonest; essentially, to rely even more heavily on the extrinsic evidence and inherent probabilities. Inchodiev v stein[2015] EWHC 1428（Comm）Burton J在[38]中表示：“如果我面临两套口头证据的选择......被派对俩所说的派对曾欺骗我，或者怀疑他们的可信度，我将完全做到这一点，即我所做的一切，即寻求可靠的证据是一方或另一方的证据。“

As a last resort, in the event that the trial judge takes the view that neither side’s evidence is honest and there is no extrinsic factors on which the Judge can base his conclusion then it may be that the Judge can do no more than find that the claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proving the facts necessary to make out his claim and, as a result, the claim fails. Such an outcome would generally be viewed as unsatisfactory however.

迦勒赖特
梅特兰分庭