25 years of experience and over 3500 cases.

Contact Paul: 0403 396 316

  • Need Any Help in Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Canberra, Adelaide, Hobart, Darwin?

    Welcome to Australian Lie Detection Labs

    We have the only Australian polygraph examiner to be court qualified as an expert and have results used as evidence. Consulted by Police, Current Affairs programs, Legal Aid, Insurance Companies, Law Firms, Private Investigators, Child Protection Agents, and Private clients.

  • We are here to help you

    Efficient. Effective. Experienced

    My certification as a Forensic Polygraph Examiner satisfies the standards stipulated for education and training of individuals involved in the science of Forensic Psychophysiology established by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)E52.

We handle private cases such as: infidelity, child abuse claims, work cover claims and more.

Who We Are

Internationally Accredited Examiner by the APA and NPA and Court Qualified in Qld and Victoria.

We have been providing Polygraph and Lie Detection Services in all states of Australia for over 24 years. Polygraph examiners at our firm are highly certified with extensive training and experience in the science of Forensic Psychophysiology (lie detector testing) and Psychology to address all matters of false accusations, including Infidelity and Child Abuse Allegations. We do testing for Infidelity (Cheating Spouse or Partner) Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Paedophilia, Rape, Theft, Fraud and has been demonstrated as an effective way to dismiss false allegations and false claims and to confirm the truth.

Over 3500 successful lie detector tests have been conducted by our firm for private individuals, businesses, the media, and infidelity in relationships. Our head office is located in Brisbane but we have offices all around Australia and we can come to you if required. Skills include Counselling and Professional Practice, Testing for Infidelity, Child abuse, Paedophilia, Sex Addiction, Staff Theft, Drug use, Insurance Fraud, Drugs and drug-related activity, WorkCover claims and Social Health (Interventions),

3500

Solved Cases
Australian Lie Detection Labs

Peer Reviewed Scientific
Research.

We have the only Australian polygraph examiner to be court qualified as an expert and have results used as evidence. Consulted by Police, Current Affairs programs, Legal Aid, Insurance Companies, Law Firms, Private Investigators, Child Protection Agents, and Private clients. We service Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, North Queensland, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, and Hobart. Internationally Accredited Examiner by the APA and NPA and Court Qualified in Qld and Victoria.

Relationship and Infidelity Tests

Do you suspect your Partner is Cheating? Can Your Relationship Survive an Affair? ... Most people who cheat are looking for a connection.

Read more

Sexual Allegations Tests

During a sexual assault forensic exam, a trained healthcare professional can collect DNA evidence from your body, clothes, and other personal belongings.

Read more

Child Abuse Allegations

Children's advocacy centers offer an evidence-based, trauma-informed, multidisciplinary response to child abuse allegations through multidisciplinary team ...

Read more

Polygraph/Lie Detector Testing

Answer Questions like: Is my partner having an affair? Have you been accused or been a victim of sexual abuse or assault? Deal with the truth as that's what a lie detector test will give you.

Read more

Counselling

Make an informed decision now which may save you time, money and heartache in the future.

Read more

Private Investigator

We can also offer a private investigator service, as we have many contacts in the industry. This service would be well suited to situations where confrontation is not suitable yet.

Read more
Experiences

Let Our Experience
be Your Guide

I have also completed undergraduate studies in Psychology with a particular interest in Cognitive, Biological, and Forensic Psychology as part of a B.A. Psychology degree at Griffith University.

I have also conducted tests for nearly every news and current affairs program in Australia. I have had my results televised 15 times for different cases over the past 4 years. I was the catalyst with Today Tonight that pressured  ASIC to close down the National Investment Institute. I was also involved with the Corby case on Channel Seven’s Today Tonight.

My training as a Forensic Polygraph Examiner was under the direction of some of the most well-respected examiners in the world.

Dr. Louis Rovner PhD was my instructor in Psychology and Physiology as it relates to Polygraph testing and examinee preparation.

Mr. Joseph Paoella US secret service agent (retired)

Mr. Ken Whaley President of the National Polygraph Association at the time.

Dr. Chris Cugas PhD was the founder of the Polygraph School I received my training.

Frequently Asked Question (FAQ's)

Has a lie detector test been on the news much?

Some famous cases that the polygraph was used. Oj Simpson civil case. Mr. Simpson took a Lie Detector test.

NEW YORK — O.J. Simpson flunked a lie detector test just after the double murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman and even his own lawyer tried to get him to plead guilty, says one of his former closest associates.

In an interview with Barbara Walters to be shown tonight on ABC’s “20/20” news program, longtime Simpson friend Robert Kardashian said he was devastated by the results of the defense-administered test.

“I was devastated,” he said. “I didn’t know what to believe . . . O.J. said, `Every time I heard Nicole’s name, my heart was pounding, I would, I would get emotional and’ – that type of reaction.”

Trial experts said this would be the first time a key figure in the case has directly said Simpson, who was found not guilty of the double murders a year ago, had flunked the test.  True. He scored as low as possible, and the examiner tried to convince Shapiro (his lawyer) that it was “conclusive” evidence of his guilt; as a result of the failed polygraph, Shapiro began investigating a possible insanity defense.

For the record this test result was used in Oj's civil trial helped the Goldman’s win the civil case.

The JonBenet Ramsey case a 6 years old beauty pagent child thought to be killled by her parents or brother. The Ramsays took lie detector tests by 2 top examiners and passed. At the time everyone thought they were guilty but recent testing of DNA evidence has confirmed she was killed by an outside party. The case remains unsolved.

How many questions can be asked during a specific issue polygraph test?

There are usually 10 questions in total that make up a test question format. Of those 6 are diagnostic and 3 or 4 are Relevant questions or the questions you are trying to resolve, dependent on the testing format itself.

What are the stages of a lie detector test?

Testing Procedure
The testing process can be divided into three parts. The first being what we call the pre-test interview. This is the time the facts of the case are explored and the questions to be included in the test are formulated. Once everyone is satisfied with the questions the person taking the test signs a statutory declaration giving the examiner written permission to conduct the test, this also doubles as a confidentiality agreement which nominates who can receive the test results.
The second phase is the data collection or the testing phase were the subject is tested on the previously agreed to questions. This is when the person who has agreed to be tested is connected to the Polygraph via the physiological sensors which feed the information into the data acquisition system then into the computerised polygraph screen and produces the chart data the examiner will use to numerically score to derive the result.
The third stage is the results stage this is when the examiner will work out the results based on the chart data and use of a numerical scoring system and a computerised algorithm specifically designed to offer conclusions based on polygraph data and charts. Once the evaluations are completed the result, is then first presented to person who has taken the test, and second, any other interested party agreed to via the Stat Dec at the pre test stage.

Theory and Practice
Polygraphy or psychophysiological detection of deception is based upon a scientific theory that can be tested with the methods of science. Any conscious effort at deception by a rational individual causes involuntary and uncontrollable physiological responses which include measurable reactions in blood pressure, peripheral pulse-amplitude, breathing and electrodermal response. The most commonly used techniques for the psychophysiological detection of deception are control/comparison question tests. The control question test (CQT) assesses a person’s credibility by looking for a differential reaction between two questions: the relevant and comparison questions. It has been shown that a person will develop a “psychological set” and direct their attention to the question that posses the greatest anxiety, concern or threat to his/her well being if they have decided to be dishonest in their answers.

Is it common to take a lie detector test to address allegations of infidelity?

Yes, absolutely this is a very common request for our business and we are very skilled in this area. You will also benefit from some free counseling from our examiner who is also a trained and experienced Counselor and Forensic Psychophysiologist.

Is there scientific research that supports polygraph examinations?

There is a small arsenal of research that shows a properly conducted lie detector tests are 90 to 98 percent accurate. More recently a field study was conducted using a specific issue format known as the Quadri -track ZCT or some refer to it as the MQTZCT.

In my opinion, after reviewing a lot of literature on polygraph testing this particular testing technique is the most reliable of the numerous formats out there, if not the best.

There have been 3 field studies conducted using this testing format and all of the studies show very high accuracy rates the research can be viewed at:

The Journal of Physiology and Behaviour Mangan, D. J., Armitage, T. E., Adams, G.C. (2008a). A Field Study on the Validity of the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique. Physiology and Behaviour, 95 (1-2), 17-23

The results of this study showed almost perfect conclusions with inconclusive (no opinion) results removed. This was in line with previous research conducted in 1989. The arguments against the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique in Physiology & Behavior, are based largely on dated articles that examined control question polygraph techniques whose psychological test structures, physiological analyses, and scoring systems are significantly different than those of the Quadri-Track ZCT. Iacono and Verschuere et al. alleged that the Quadri-Track ZCT is biased against the innocent and can be defeated with the use of countermeasures without considering the technique’s unique “remedial inside track” that quantifies the innocent examinee’s fear of error—and the guilty examinee’s hope of error—which are factored into the overall score,thus avoiding false-positive and false-negative errors. Their objection to the use of confessions as the criterion for ground truth presumes that the polygraph examinations conducted in this field study were conducted in a vacuum. They ignored the various methods of post-test confirmation and research studies that support the use of confessions as ground truth. Verschuere et al. cited the National Research Council’s 2003 report to support their conviction that the accuracy of polygraph tests is well below perfection and errors often occur. However, they failed to mention that the accuracy range values of the seven field studies which met the National Research Council’s scientific criteria were from 0.711 to 0.999 with a median value of 0.89, and that the field study with the highest accuracy (0.999) was from a published 1989 field study on the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique.

Some peer-reviewed research as follows.

2009

Handler, M. D., Honts, C. R., Krapohl, D. J., Nelson, R., & Griffin, S. (2009). Integration of pre-employment polygraph screening into the police selection process. Manuscript accepted for publication in, Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology.

Honts, C. R., (2009). Polygraph and polygraph techniques. Entry accepted for publication in Cutler, B. (Ed.) The encyclopedia of psychology and law. New York: Sage.

Honts, C. R., (in press). Deception detection technology, in, Jamieson, A., & Moenssens, A., (Eds.) Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

Honts, C. R., & Forrest, K. (2009). A cautionary note for the teaching of psychology and law: Media images may be more persuasive than data. Manuscript under revision.

Honts, C. R., & Schweinle, (2009). Information gain of psychophysiological detection of deception in forensic and screening settings. Manuscript accepted for publication pending revision, Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback.

Webb, A. K., Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C., Bernhardt, P. C., and Cook, A., E. (in press). Effectiveness of pupil diameter in probable-lie comparison question tests for deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology.

2008

Handler, M. D., & Honts, C. R. (2008). Psychophysiological mechanisms in deception detection: A theoretical overview. Polygraph 36, 221-232.

Handler, M. D., & Honts, C. R. (2008). You can run, but you can’t hide: A critical look at the fight or flight response in psychophysiological detection of deception. European Polygraph, 2 193-207.

Honts, C. R., (2008). Credibility assessment at portals. Report of the Credibility Assessment Research Summit Portal Committee, to the U. S. Department of Defense.

Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2008). Scientific Status: The case for polygraph tests. In, D. L. Faigman, M. J. Saks, J. Sanders, and E. Cheng (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Volume 5): 2008-2009 Edition. Thompson West: Eagan, Minnesota.

Voas, B., Johnson, M., Turrisi, R., Taylor, D., Honts, C. R., & Nelson, L. (2008). Bringing alcohol on campus to raise money: Impact on student drinking and drinking problems. Addiction, 103, 940-950.

2007

Honts, C. R. & Alloway, W. (2007). Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test. Legal And Criminological Psychology, 12, 311-312. (Available online in 2006)

Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. (2007). Automation of a screening polygraph test increases accuracy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 187-199. (Available online in 2006)

2006

Honts, C. R. (2006). Recent theoretical and applied findings for autonomic psychophysiological deception detection. International Journal Of Psychophysiology 61, 304-305. (Abstract)

2005

Honts, C. R. (2005). Rocky mountain psychological association: Report of the 75th annual meeting. American Psychologist, 60, 1022-1024.

Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2005). Scientific Status: The case for polygraph tests. In, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Volume 4): Forensics 2005-2006 Edition. Thompson West: Eagan, Minnesota, (571-605).

2004

Honts, C. R. (2004). The psychophysiological detection of deception, in P. Granhag and L. Strömwall (Eds.) Detection of deception in forensic contexts. London: Cambridge University Press 103-123.

Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Gordon, A. (2004). Effects of outside issues on the Control Question Test. The Journal of General Psychology, 151, 53-74.

Thurber, S., Bonynge, E., & Honts, C. R. (2004). Barron’s revised ego-strength scale as a measure of test taking style: Relationships with the validity scales of the MMPI-2. Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal, 1, 119-124.

2003

Honts, C. R. (2003). Participant perceptions support the rationale of the comparison questions test for the psychophysiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 40, S48. (Abstract)

2002

Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. (2002). Countermeasures, in M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing. London: Academic (251-264).

Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2002). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case for polygraph tests. In, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Volume 2). West: St. Paul Minnesota, (446-483).

Otter-Henderson, K., Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. L. (2002). Spontaneous countermeasures during polygraph examinations: An apparent exercise in futility. Polygraph, 31, 9-14.

Raskin, D. C., & Honts, C. R. (2002). The comparison question test. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing. London: Academic (1-49).

Thurber, S., Snow, M., & Honts, C. R. (2002). The Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale: Convergent validity and diagnostic discrimination. Assessment, 9, 401-405.

2001

Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. (2001). Psychophysiological credibility assessment. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1, 87-99.

Honts, C. R., Amato, S. & Gordon, A. K. (2001). Effects of spontaneous countermeasures used against the comparison question test. Polygraph, 30, 1-9.

2000

Honts, C. R. (2000). A brief note on the misleading and the inaccurate: A rejoinder to Matte (2000) with critical comments on Matte and Reuss (1999). Polygraph, 29, 321-325.

Honts, C. R., (2000). Comments on State v. Shively, 999 Pacific 2d, 952 (2000). Invited commentary. The Forensic Panel Letter, November, Available: www.forensicpanel.com

Honts, C. R., (2000). Comments on State of Hawaii v. William K. Naone, 92 Haw. 289. Invited commentary. The Forensic Panel Letter Online, May, Available: http://www.forensicpanel.com

Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Gordon, A. (2000). Validity of outside-issue questions in the control question test: Final report on grant no. N00014-98-1-0725. Submitted to the Office of Naval Research and the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. Applied Cognition Research Institute, Boise State University. DTIC# ADA376666.

Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., Amato, S. L., Gordon, A., & Devitt, M. K. (2000). The hybrid directed lie test, the overemphasized comparison question, chimeras and other inventions: A rejoinder to Abrams (1999). Polygraph, 29, 156-168.

Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Kircher, J. C. (2000). The case for the admissibility of the results of polygraph examinations: In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony: Volume 1 2000 Pocket Part (201-217).

1999

Bell, B. G., Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1999). The Utah numerical scoring system. Polygraph, 28, 1-9.

Honts, C. R. (1999). The discussion of comparison questions between list repetitions (charts) is associated with increased test accuracy. 28, Polygraph, 117-123.

Honts, C. R. (1999). Flaws detected in polygraph study. The Forensic Panel Letter, 3(11), 1,5.

Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. L. (1999). The automated polygraph examination: Final report. Final report of U. S. Government Contract No. 110224-1998-MO. Applied Cognition Research Institute, Boise State University.

Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Kircher, J. C. (1999). The case for the admissibility of the results of polygraph examinations: 1999 Pocket Part to Vol. 1 of D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony. (pp. 160-174).

Tye, M. C., Amato, S. L., Honts, C. R., Devitt, M. K., & Peters, D. P. (1999). The willingness of children to lie and the assessment of credibility in an ecologically relevant laboratory setting. Applied Developmental Science, 3, 92-109.

1998

Honts, C. R., & Gordon, A. (1998). A critical analysis of Matte’s analysis of the directed lie. Polygraph, 27, 241-252.

Honts, C.R. (1998). Louder and longer: A review of the second edition of Lykken’s A Tremor in the Blood. Polygraph, 27, 302-304.

Honts, C. R. (1998). Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application. Polygraph, 27, 219-230. Reprinted from: The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309-324 (1996).

1997

Devitt, M. K., Honts, C. R., & Vondergeest, L. (1997). Truth or just bias: The presentation of polygraph testing in introductory psychology text books. The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 1, 9-32.

Honts, C. R. (1997). Truth or bias: Psychology and the polygraph. The National Psychologist, 6, 15.

Honts, C. R., & Peterson, C. F. (1997). Brief of the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists as Amicus Curiae. United States v. Scheffer, in the Supreme Court of the United States. Available from the author.

Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1997). A rejoinder to Iacono and Lykken. Chapter in, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. 629-631).

Horowitz, S. W., Kircher, J. C., Honts, C. R., & Raskin, D. C. (1997). The role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 34, 108-115.

Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1997). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case for polygraph tests. Chapter in, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. 565-582).

Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1997). A response to professors Iacono and Lykken Chapter in, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. 619-627).

1996

Amato-Henderson, S. L., Honts, C. R., & Plaud, J. J. (1996). Effects of misinformation on the Concealed Knowledge Test. Psychophysiology, 33, S18. [Abstract]

Honts, C. R. (1996). Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application. The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309-324.

Testimonials