amended statement

[loopylou8]

Heres one for you.
While riding a motorbike, a boy was stopped and robbed of it. There were two defendants, one slapped the victim across the face and the othe did nothing except jump on the back behind the other and drove off. the victim gave a statement and with police pressure said that the other defendant had a knife although did not use it.
They were subsequently caught. They have pleaded guilty and have objected to the knife,which the prosecution have rejected this.
Now the victim has admitted there was no knife and wishes to amend his statement. The police won't accept this and he has been told he faces perjury.
Can he do this? I thought that if there was evidence found at the last minute it could be introduced to secure a conviction? If that is is the case whats the difference here?

[zig.zag]

flippin eck loopylou

you aint been about in ages!!

is this your son?


lol

[loopylou8]

Been on hols mate but the problem was still here when I got back. Need an answer asap to this one please

[wishy123]

This is not "new evidence", it's a fundamental alteration to a witness statement, which actually undermines the prospects of a conviction rather than securing one. Can't see how or why the police would pressurise him into claiming there was a knife, sounds more like an embellishment of his own in the first place to get the police more interested in the case, which he's now getting cold feet about. The police are right - if he now changes his story he's admitting perjury, which is a criminal offence. By the same token if he sticks to his story and the judge finds he's lying, he could still be accused of perjury.

[loopylou8]

thank you wishy, but if he goes ahead and amends it would the court look at it do you think. He has cold feet 'cos he has told people that he's not going to court but the police would still use his statement. By them pleading guilty he doesn't have to either

[jno]

I'm not so sure - isn't it only perjury if it's in evidence made in court under oath?

[oldmaggie]

If he decides to change his statement there is very little the police can do about it. All he has to say that on reflection he realised it wasn't a knife that he saw. Where the heck did the police get the idea that changing a statement is perjury? This is wilfully telling a lie under oath. The defendants solicitor could ask for a Newton hearing which is a bit like a trial whereby it is established if a knife was used.

[paraffin]

"and with police pressure said........"

What did the Police do? Kneel on his windpipe? Beat him to a pulp? Rip out his fingernails?

Had he told the truth in the first place none of this would have happened, would it?

[loopylou8]

Thank you guys for the info. Just set about getting a new barrister now.