APPELLATE PRACTICE — Evaluation of Evidence — Distinction Between Credibility and Evaluation
Ratio Decidendi
Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in Joseph v. State (2011) NLC-123-48-2010(SC) at pp. 7; Paras B–C:
"There is a clear distinction between finding of fact based on the credibility of witnesses and findings based on evaluation of evidence. In the later case the Court of Appeal is in as good a position as the trial court to evaluate the evidence, but an appeal court must respect the opinion of the trial judge who saw and heard the witnesses."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes a distinction between findings based on credibility (where the trial court has the advantage) and findings based on evaluation of evidence (where the appellate court is in an equally good position). The principle applies where evidence is challenged on appeal. It ensures that credibility findings are respected while evaluation findings may be reviewed. The principle reflects the limits of appellate review. It prevents interference with credibility findings. The court must distinguish between the two. The principle provides guidance on appellate evaluation of evidence.