News1 min ago
Perjury, Contempt of Court or Deception?
I'm having a little difficulty applying the Perjury Act 1911 the following scenarios, all in Civil Proceedings (County Court).
For shorthand 'lie' means 'dishonestly and knowingly making a false statement of truth which was at the heart of the matter and the judge relied upon'.
(1) Lying when giving oral evidence � well I'm ok on that, its perjury (I hope!)
(2) Lying in a written statement with a 'statement of truth?
(3) As (2), but the witness giving oral evidence to the judge with his statement before the judge, although the lie not being repeated orally as this part of the evidence was not examined?
(4) Would it make any difference if the witness was not just mere witness but an Expert Witness who's first duty is to the court in all of the above?
For shorthand 'lie' means 'dishonestly and knowingly making a false statement of truth which was at the heart of the matter and the judge relied upon'.
(1) Lying when giving oral evidence � well I'm ok on that, its perjury (I hope!)
(2) Lying in a written statement with a 'statement of truth?
(3) As (2), but the witness giving oral evidence to the judge with his statement before the judge, although the lie not being repeated orally as this part of the evidence was not examined?
(4) Would it make any difference if the witness was not just mere witness but an Expert Witness who's first duty is to the court in all of the above?
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Rache. 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.
ONE: Lying when giving oral evidence
Correct; this is Perjury, contrary to s1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911.
TWO: Lying in a written statement with a 'statement of truth'
This is a 'False unsworn statement under Evidence', contrary to s1A of the Perjury Act 1911.
NB: This section was inserted into the Perjury Act 1911 by the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975.
THREE: Lying in a written statement with a 'statement of truth', but the witness giving oral evidence...
This is also 'False unsworn statement under Evidence', contrary to s1A of the Perjury Act 1911. The act makes no mention that the lie 'was at the heart of the matter and the judge relied upon it'. Its still an offence. The only difference I imagine is that if the lie is not 'material' then you couldn't appeal about the outcome of the civil case due to the lie. There is probably a case on this that you need to find.
FOUR: Expert witness lying
It doesn't malke a difference if the witness is an expert witness insofar that they have committed a criminal offence and there are no special offences that he could commit.
But I would expect that it means that it is more likely that you could succesfully appeal the result of the civil case. And I would expect that the expert witness would get a longer sentence due to these aggravating circumstances.
Hope that helps!
Correct; this is Perjury, contrary to s1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911.
TWO: Lying in a written statement with a 'statement of truth'
This is a 'False unsworn statement under Evidence', contrary to s1A of the Perjury Act 1911.
NB: This section was inserted into the Perjury Act 1911 by the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975.
THREE: Lying in a written statement with a 'statement of truth', but the witness giving oral evidence...
This is also 'False unsworn statement under Evidence', contrary to s1A of the Perjury Act 1911. The act makes no mention that the lie 'was at the heart of the matter and the judge relied upon it'. Its still an offence. The only difference I imagine is that if the lie is not 'material' then you couldn't appeal about the outcome of the civil case due to the lie. There is probably a case on this that you need to find.
FOUR: Expert witness lying
It doesn't malke a difference if the witness is an expert witness insofar that they have committed a criminal offence and there are no special offences that he could commit.
But I would expect that it means that it is more likely that you could succesfully appeal the result of the civil case. And I would expect that the expert witness would get a longer sentence due to these aggravating circumstances.
Hope that helps!
Thanks, I just read S1(A) "If any person, in giving any testimony (either orally or in writing) otherwise than on oath, where required to do so by an order under section 2 of the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975, makes a statement—"
In these circumstances, no order was made to give this evidence under S2 E(POJ)A1975, therefore I assume it doesn't apply?
In these circumstances, no order was made to give this evidence under S2 E(POJ)A1975, therefore I assume it doesn't apply?
Cannot see how to ask a question on these pages so I will try on this answer page.
Can anyone tell me if perjury is involved in the following;-
A solicitor argues for client A, against one neighbour, in case 1 that the client's boundary is in a certain location.
He then acts for same client A, against the other neighbour, in case 2, that the same boundary is in a different location.
He has to know one of his statements is untrue so can both claims be placed in front of the judge in case 2 with a claim of perjury against the solicitor and his client?
Can anyone tell me if perjury is involved in the following;-
A solicitor argues for client A, against one neighbour, in case 1 that the client's boundary is in a certain location.
He then acts for same client A, against the other neighbour, in case 2, that the same boundary is in a different location.
He has to know one of his statements is untrue so can both claims be placed in front of the judge in case 2 with a claim of perjury against the solicitor and his client?
1 to 3 of 3
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.