Webster v. Lord Advocate 1985 SC 173. 2 [1977] QB 966
Citation:Webster v. Lord Advocate 1985 SC 173. 2 [1977] QB 966
Rule of thumb:What is the counter argument if a person is accused of embellishment, not telling the whole truth, with their account of the evidence in Court? The standard counter-argument is to state that the person was not exaggerating or embellishing, but just hyper-sensitive, as some people in society are, so there should not be prejudice against them for this. The threshold for proving embellishment is very hard to meet.
Judgment:
The Court has set the precedent that in order for facts to be established the witnesses and the evidence should be reasonable and there should not be attempts to exaggerate, “So viewing it I have found in Bowdler's evidence, even if taken with the qualifications suggested by Mackenzie, ample confirmation of my conclusion that the evidence of the pursuer and her witnesses was not an exaggerated reaction of the hyper-sensitive but represented the honest impressions of a cross-section of reasonable people”.
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.