PERJURY
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section22/chapter_a.html#07
By
section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911, perjury is committed when:-
a lawfully
sworn witness or interpreter
in judicial proceedings
wilfully makes a false statement
which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, and
which is material in the proceedings.
The offence
is triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of seven
years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
A conviction
cannot be obtained solely on the evidence of a single witness as
to the falsity of any statement. There must, by virtue of section
13 Perjury Act 1991, be some other evidence of the falsity of the
statement, for example, a letter or account written by the defendant
contradicting his sworn evidence is sufficient if supported by a
single witness.
Perjury
is regarded as "one of the most serious offences on the criminal
calendar because it wholly undermines the whole basis of the administration
of justice":- Chapman J in (R v Warne(1980) 2 Cr. App.R. (S)
42). It is regarded as serious whether it is committed in the context
of a minor case, for example a car passenger who falsely states
that the driver did not jump a red light as alleged, or a serious
case, for example a false alibi witness in a bank robbery case.
In most
cases, an offence of perjury will also amount to perverting the
course of justice. If the perjury is the sole or principal act,
then it will be normal to charge perjury. If the perjury is part
of a much more significant series of acts aimed at perverting justice,
then a charge of perverting the course of justice would be more
appropriate.
A charge
of perverting the course of justice cannot be brought simply to
avoid the requirements of corroboration of the falsity of the evidence
as required by s.13: (Tsang Ping Nam v R 74 Cr. App. R. 139 PC).
Perjury
by a prosecution witness
Proceedings
against a prosecution witness for perjury will depend on an assessment
of the material effect of the perjured evidence. If a wrongful conviction
is believed to have occurred because of the perjured evidence, a
prosecution should follow, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
If the witness has lied to protect his or her own interests rather
than with an intent to pervert the course of justice, a prosecution
may be unnecessary.
Perjury
by a defendant
If a defendant
is convicted despite giving perjured evidence, the decision to prosecute
must take note of the sentence imposed for the original offence.
If you think a conviction for perjury is unlikely to result in a
substantial increase in sentence, then the public interest probably
does not require a prosecution.
Consider
also the possible consequences to the original conviction of an
acquittal of the defendant on a charge of perjury arising out of
the earlier proceedings. You should, therefore, be satisfied that
the evidence of perjury is exceptionally strong before instituting
proceedings.
Evidence
of premeditation is an important factor in coming to a decision
on whether or not to prosecute. If the defendant's lies have been
planned before the hearing as opposed to arising on the spur of
the moment during cross-examination, the public interest in prosecuting
will be stronger.
Where a
defendant is acquitted, wholly or partly because of false evidence
given by him or her, a prosecution for perjury might be appropriate.
Where there is clear evidence of perjury, which emerges after the
trial, and which goes to the heart of the issues raised at the trial,
a prosecution for perjury may be appropriate. A prosecution should
not be brought, however, where it may give the appearance that the
prosecution is seeking to go behind the earlier acquittal: see dicta
by Lord Hailsham L.C. in (D.P.P. v Humphrys [1977] AC).
Perjury
by a defence witness
The decision
to prosecute a defence witness for perjury partly depends on whether
the defendant in the earlier trial was convicted:
If the
defendant was convicted, and there is no clear evidence of collusion,
a prosecution would not usually be appropriate;
If the defendant was convicted and there is clear evidence of
collusion between the witness and defendant to give perjured evidence,
a prosecution may be appropriate. Where it is in the public interest
to prosecute for perjury others involved in fabricating false
evidence with the defendant, then the defendant should also be
prosecuted, except in exceptional circumstances;
In the event of an acquittal, in the absence of clear evidence
of collusion, the evidential test for a prosecution is unlikely
to be met. Where there is clear evidence of collusion, and where
the perjured evidence is sufficiently material to the case, then
careful consideration should be given to a prosecution.
Offences
akin to perjury
There are
a number of offences akin to perjury in the perjury
act 1911 which, should be considered, including:-
false
statements on oath made otherwise than in a judicial proceeding:
s.2;
false statements etc with reference to marriage: s.3;
false statements as to births or deaths: s.4;
false statutory declarations and other false statements without
oath: s.5;
false declarations etc to obtain registration etc for carrying
on a vocation: s.6;
subornation of perjury: s.7.
These offences
may overlap with other criminal offences, such as forgery or deception.
The more flagrant the breach of the appropriate section of this
Act, the more likely it will be that the defendant should be prosecuted
for an offence under the Act as well as any other offences that
arise.
Where the
false evidence is tendered in written form under:
Section
9 Criminal Justice Act 1967, an offence is committed under section
89 of that Act
Section 5 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, an offence is committed
under 106 of that Act
