ChatterBank6 mins ago
What is Criteria for Charge of Perjury?
What criteria is used to determine whether someone is committing perjury?
For instance, an alleged burgler says that he was with his brother at the time of the offence, and his brother confirms this. Prosecution witnesses and video evidence demonstrate that this is not true and the jury finds the accused guilty. Surely this means that both the defendant and his brother are guilty of lying and should be charged with perjury?
Can anyone clarify?
For instance, an alleged burgler says that he was with his brother at the time of the offence, and his brother confirms this. Prosecution witnesses and video evidence demonstrate that this is not true and the jury finds the accused guilty. Surely this means that both the defendant and his brother are guilty of lying and should be charged with perjury?
Can anyone clarify?
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by plowter. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To see how the Crown Prosecution Service considers possible prosecution of perjury, start here and scroll down to the relevant section:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section22/chapter_ a.html#07
Chris
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section22/chapter_ a.html#07
Chris
Thanks Buenchico, a very useful link.
Am just trying to understand the criteria to provide evidence that can be regarded as 'more than simply lying'.
What brings it to mind is the Tommy Sheridan case. He won a defamation case against New of the World. He, and the witnesses for the defence, have all since been charged with perjury by the prosecutors.
Unless any new evidence has come to light, then why did the judge find in his favour in the first place?
The gist of the case is that the defendant's supporters deliberately lied to protect him. If that is true, why is it any different from what happens every day in courts across the country?
Am just trying to understand the criteria to provide evidence that can be regarded as 'more than simply lying'.
What brings it to mind is the Tommy Sheridan case. He won a defamation case against New of the World. He, and the witnesses for the defence, have all since been charged with perjury by the prosecutors.
Unless any new evidence has come to light, then why did the judge find in his favour in the first place?
The gist of the case is that the defendant's supporters deliberately lied to protect him. If that is true, why is it any different from what happens every day in courts across the country?
(2-part post):
Thanks for the reply.
A civil case (e.g. for defamation) is decided on the balance of probabilities, with the court asked to decide which of the two sides' stories is most likely to be true. While each side will try to produce evidence to discredit the other, neither side has any real investigatory powers, so the evidence provided is often far more limited than that produced before a criminal court. (Claims for defamation are rather unusual in that 'the pendulum doesn't start in the middle', as it does in other civil cases. The court normally requires the defendants to show that their statements were either true or 'fair comment'. If they fail to do so, the plaintiff will succeed in his action). The court decided, based upon the limited evidence put before it, that the defendants had failed to show that their published statements were true and so ruled in favour of the plaintiff.
Thanks for the reply.
A civil case (e.g. for defamation) is decided on the balance of probabilities, with the court asked to decide which of the two sides' stories is most likely to be true. While each side will try to produce evidence to discredit the other, neither side has any real investigatory powers, so the evidence provided is often far more limited than that produced before a criminal court. (Claims for defamation are rather unusual in that 'the pendulum doesn't start in the middle', as it does in other civil cases. The court normally requires the defendants to show that their statements were either true or 'fair comment'. If they fail to do so, the plaintiff will succeed in his action). The court decided, based upon the limited evidence put before it, that the defendants had failed to show that their published statements were true and so ruled in favour of the plaintiff.
Perjury is a criminal matter, which means that the full range of investigatory powers available to the police come into play. They seized a computer from TS's house. If, theoretically, they found e-mails relating to the type of life-style that the press had alleged he enjoyed, it could contribute to the case against him and others. (Such evidence would not have been available to the defendants in the civil case).
As I perceive it, a lot of the lies which are put forward in a criminal court are ignored because the defendant is found guilty anyway. (i.e. the CPS seek to prove the defendant guilty. Once they've achieved their goal, they regard it as 'case closed').
The situation where a person sues for defamation (and commits perjury to do so) is very different. The plaintiff hasn't been dragged before the courts by the police and CPS. He's made a positive decision to use the court process to fraudulently get money from the defendants. The courts take fraud seriously, so it's hardly surprising that they take it extremely seriously when fraud is committed by actually using the processes of the courts (which, allegedly, is effectively what TS did)
Chris
As I perceive it, a lot of the lies which are put forward in a criminal court are ignored because the defendant is found guilty anyway. (i.e. the CPS seek to prove the defendant guilty. Once they've achieved their goal, they regard it as 'case closed').
The situation where a person sues for defamation (and commits perjury to do so) is very different. The plaintiff hasn't been dragged before the courts by the police and CPS. He's made a positive decision to use the court process to fraudulently get money from the defendants. The courts take fraud seriously, so it's hardly surprising that they take it extremely seriously when fraud is committed by actually using the processes of the courts (which, allegedly, is effectively what TS did)
Chris
Hi Jaycee401:
You should provide the civil court with every bit of evidence which will help your case, including anything which shows that the plaintiff is lying.
The civil court bases its decisions upon the balance of probabilities. So, even though you might convince the civil court that the plaintiff is lying, there might not be enough evidence to convince a criminal court that the plaintiff has committed perjury. (A criminal court can't convict someone unless the case is proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' which is much harder to show than the simple 'balance of probabilities').
Concentrate on winning your civil case by simply showing that it's far more likely that you're telling the truth than that the plaintiff is. If the civil court believes that the plaintiff has deliberately set out to lie to the court (rather than simply presenting a different point of view about a contractual matter) they could ask the police to investigate with a view to the CPS bringing a case for perjury. However, this would be an extremely rare occurrence.
Chris
You should provide the civil court with every bit of evidence which will help your case, including anything which shows that the plaintiff is lying.
The civil court bases its decisions upon the balance of probabilities. So, even though you might convince the civil court that the plaintiff is lying, there might not be enough evidence to convince a criminal court that the plaintiff has committed perjury. (A criminal court can't convict someone unless the case is proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' which is much harder to show than the simple 'balance of probabilities').
Concentrate on winning your civil case by simply showing that it's far more likely that you're telling the truth than that the plaintiff is. If the civil court believes that the plaintiff has deliberately set out to lie to the court (rather than simply presenting a different point of view about a contractual matter) they could ask the police to investigate with a view to the CPS bringing a case for perjury. However, this would be an extremely rare occurrence.
Chris
1 to 8 of 8
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.