Understanding the Essentials of Perjury

Perjury. There don't seem to be any reliable statistics for how many perjury prosecutions there have been over the years, but it's not very many. And I think we can confidently say there are many more perjurers than there are perjury trials. In fact, the cynics among you might think that there's at least a bit of perjury going on in... pretty much every case, because perjury is essentially lying on oath, isn't it? All those defendants who swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, they do then go on to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, don't they? Well, no. A lot of the time, they do not. Now, of course, we have to accept that there are usually two sides to every story. There might be genuine differences of opinion and the interpretation of events. Witnesses may not have perfect memories, and they don't usually have the benefit of a contemporaneous note written in a pocketbook that they are allowed to refresh their memory with. I mean, who among us can genuinely say that we can accurately recall an event from years ago in perfect detail, and that our memories haven't been coloured by later descriptions or reinterpretations? after we've been told about the event by others. People who are anxious and under stress make mistakes. And giving evidence in court is pretty stressful, as I expect many of you appreciate. Such people might say something under oath that is not true. But that doesn't automatically mean they've committed perjury. Just saying something on oath which isn't true isn't perjury. It has to be a lie. You lie when you say something which you know to be false or do not believe to be true at the time you say it. If you believe what you are saying to be true when it isn't, you're wrong, but you haven't lied. And there's more. Even if someone does lie on oath, and even if that lie was deliberate and intentional, rather than a mere slip of the tongue, that still doesn't necessarily mean that they have committed perjury. Because although I said perjury is essentially lying on oath, I didn't tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Because importantly, it's not just lying on oath, it's lying about something important. something which could have changed the outcome of the case. A witness may have lied in court repeatedly, but the issue is, did it have an effect on the trial? Not every lie in court amounts to perjury. In short, perjury is the telling, on oath, of a deliberate lie about something important to the case. What then about those really deliberate... blatant lies about stuff that is crucial to the case. I wasn't there. It wasn't me. Why don't we prosecute them when they're found guilty and their lie has been exposed? It matters that people tell the truth in court because court cases change lives. Justice cannot be done if people do not tell the truth. It is in the public interest to prosecute on occasion to remind us all of that. But the reality is that if we prosecuted every potential case, for example, every time someone says they didn't do it, but is later found guilty of doing it, well, the system would collapse, which I guess is one of the main reasons why we don't. Another reason would be the potential consequences to the original conviction of a later acquittal of the defendant in respect of perjury in the original proceedings. For this reason, CPS guidance suggests that prosecutors should ensure that evidence of perjury is exceptionally strong before bringing proceedings. Sometimes it's better just to leave it while alone. Prosecutions, where they do happen, tend to be of high-profile persons, persons involved in the legal system, including police officers, on the basis that they should be persons the public can trust to tell the truth. Cases where trial judges themselves have raised concerns about perjury in their court, and cases where a large amount of money has been paid out to someone as a result of false evidence. In which case, it's not surprising that the aggrieved payer on discovering evidence of the false evidence should pursue the matter in the criminal courts. Anyway, let's get on with the details, because you've got an exam to pass. There are a number of false evidence offences dealt with by the Perjury Act of 1911, covering various different types of evidence in various different types of proceedings. And the two principal perjury offences under Sections 1 and 7 of the Act are on your syllabus. Perjury itself, under Section 1 of the Act, is triable on indictment and it carries a maximum sentence of seven years'imprisonment. Section 1 states, in subsection 1, If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding willfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury. Subsection 2 adds, The expression judicial proceeding includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal or person having by law power to hear, receive and examine evidence on oath. Subsection 3 states, Where a statement made for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is not made before the tribunal itself, but is made on oath before a person authorised by law to administer an oath to the person who makes the statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, it shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as having been made in a judicial proceeding. Well, there's quite a lot to take note of there. Firstly, it has to be evidence given on oath. That's what lawfully sworn means. So that's evidence given orally in the witness box on oath, which means swearing to tell the truth while holding a religious text from whichever religion you subscribe to, or if you've no religion, then solemnly affirming that your evidence is true. Lawfully sworn also covers evidence in documentary form that is sworn. We call such statements affidavits. An affidavit is a written witness statement which is formally sworn in front of a person who can legally administer oaths, such as a judge, a solicitor or court officer. Affidavits aren't used so much in trials these days. Most of the written witness statements you see have not been sworn as such. Just signing a statement as true isn't the same as swearing that it is true. So we're not talking here about standard witness statements made under Section 89 of the Criminal Justice Act and MG11. They're not sworn in the technically required way, and that means they're not covered by Section 1 of the Perjury Act. Don't worry, there is an offence which covers false, unsworn witness statements, but it's under the Criminal Justice Act, not the Perjury Act. So that might be a little point to watch for in an exam question. Right. where have we got to? We need a lawfully sworn oral statement or a written affidavit, which is made by a witness or an interpreter. Remember, interpreters have to take an oath when they're in court, swearing that they will truly translate what the witness says. So if they do not truly translate it, that could be perjury. Of course, witness here covers the defendant. and claimant in civil cases. You might not always think of them as witnesses, but if they give evidence, then they are witnesses to their own case. The lawfully sworn statement has to be in or for a judicial proceeding, which as subsection 2 told us, includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal or person having by law power to hear, receive and examine evidence on oath. So it covers trials and any other court hearing, courts-martial, all sorts of tribunals, inquests, and all the various legal proceedings where individual judges, magistrates or court officers can take evidence on oath. An application for a warrant, where you swear to the magistrate that your information is true, would be covered, as is evidence given by live TV link in a judicial hearing. eBay's statement is not. made for a judicial proceeding and is false, then there's another offence to cover it. The lawfully sworn statement must be a statement material in that proceeding, which means that the content of the evidence, although perhaps not absolutely crucial to the case, must have some importance to it, and not be of just passing relevance. It's one which might affect the decision of the court, the outcome of the trial. For example, whether a motorist has taken a drink between the time of having a road traffic accident and being breathalysed. would be a material issue, and a witness giving evidence about that matter would be making a statement material in that proceeding. Whether something is material to a particular case is a question of law for the judge. The lawfully sworn statement must be made willfully. Willful means deliberate or intentional, and it must be proved that any alleged perjury was not the result of a... misunderstanding or an accidental slip of the tongue. As I've already said, court is a stressful environment, even for those of us familiar with it, and when you're under the pressure of cross-examination by counsel, it's easy to get flustered and make mistakes because of nerves. The statement must be made intentionally and not accidentally. That's important to remember. And of course... remember that you don't commit perjury simply because what you say turns out to be untrue. You might be innocently mistaken. That's not perjury. Perjury requires the witness to make a deliberate false statement which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true. Perjury is about lying, not simply about getting things wrong. Evidence of opinion such as that given by experts, would be covered if the witness did not genuinely hold that opinion. Finally, but importantly, because it could easily crop up in an exam question, there's an unusual evidential quirk to perjury. Perjury requires corroboration. This means that some independent evidence that the statement given is false is required. We need more than just the word of one person. Independent corroboration isn't technically required to prove that the defendant made the statement, or to prove his knowledge of its falsity, although it goes without saying that both of these issues do have to be proved to the satisfaction of the court, but they don't have to be corroborated as such. Proving that the defendant did actually make the false statement should be easy enough by using a court transcript, or the evidence of those present at the hearing where the false statement was made. To summarise then, look for a sworn statement that's spoken or written but on oath in a judicial proceeding of some kind. The statement must be false and the person who makes it must know it is false, or at least they don't believe it is true. The statement must be material or important to the case and it must be made deliberately or intentionally. Remember, interpreters are covered as well as witnesses. and you'll need corroboration that the statement is false.

pretty much every case, because perjury is essentially lying on oath, isn't it? All those defendants who swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, they do then go on to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, don't they? Well, no. A lot of the time, they do not.

Now, of course, we have to accept that there are usually two sides to every story. There might be genuine differences of opinion and the interpretation of events. Witnesses may not have perfect memories, and they don't usually have the benefit of a contemporaneous note written in a pocketbook that they are allowed to refresh their memory with. I mean, who among us can genuinely say that we can accurately recall an event from years ago in perfect detail, and that our memories haven't been coloured by later descriptions or reinterpretations? after we've been told about the event by others.

People who are anxious and under stress make mistakes. And giving evidence in court is pretty stressful, as I expect many of you appreciate. Such people might say something under oath that is not true.

But that doesn't automatically mean they've committed perjury. Just saying something on oath which isn't true isn't perjury. It has to be a lie.

You lie when you say something which you know to be false or do not believe to be true at the time you say it. If you believe what you are saying to be true when it isn't, you're wrong, but you haven't lied. And there's more.

Even if someone does lie on oath, and even if that lie was deliberate and intentional, rather than a mere slip of the tongue, that still doesn't necessarily mean that they have committed perjury. Because although I said perjury is essentially lying on oath, I didn't tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Because importantly, it's not just lying on oath, it's lying about something important.

something which could have changed the outcome of the case. A witness may have lied in court repeatedly, but the issue is, did it have an effect on the trial? Not every lie in court amounts to perjury. In short, perjury is the telling, on oath, of a deliberate lie about something important to the case. What then about those really deliberate...

blatant lies about stuff that is crucial to the case. I wasn't there. It wasn't me. Why don't we prosecute them when they're found guilty and their lie has been exposed?

It matters that people tell the truth in court because court cases change lives. Justice cannot be done if people do not tell the truth. It is in the public interest to prosecute on occasion to remind us all of that. But the reality is that if we prosecuted every potential case, for example, every time someone says they didn't do it, but is later found guilty of doing it, well, the system would collapse, which I guess is one of the main reasons why we don't.

Another reason would be the potential consequences to the original conviction of a later acquittal of the defendant in respect of perjury in the original proceedings. For this reason, CPS guidance suggests that prosecutors should ensure that evidence of perjury is exceptionally strong before bringing proceedings. Sometimes it's better just to leave it while alone.

Prosecutions, where they do happen, tend to be of high-profile persons, persons involved in the legal system, including police officers, on the basis that they should be persons the public can trust to tell the truth. Cases where trial judges themselves have raised concerns about perjury in their court, and cases where a large amount of money has been paid out to someone as a result of false evidence. In which case, it's not surprising that the aggrieved payer on discovering evidence of the false evidence should pursue the matter in the criminal courts. Anyway, let's get on with the details, because you've got an exam to pass.

There are a number of false evidence offences dealt with by the Perjury Act of 1911, covering various different types of evidence in various different types of proceedings. And the two principal perjury offences under Sections 1 and 7 of the Act are on your syllabus. Perjury itself, under Section 1 of the Act, is triable on indictment and it carries a maximum sentence of seven years'imprisonment. Section 1 states, in subsection 1, If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding willfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury.

Subsection 2 adds, The expression judicial proceeding includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal or person having by law power to hear, receive and examine evidence on oath. Subsection 3 states, Where a statement made for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is not made before the tribunal itself, but is made on oath before a person authorised by law to administer an oath to the person who makes the statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, it shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as having been made in a judicial proceeding. Well, there's quite a lot to take note of there.

Firstly, it has to be evidence given on oath. That's what lawfully sworn means. So that's evidence given orally in the witness box on oath, which means swearing to tell the truth while holding a religious text from whichever religion you subscribe to, or if you've no religion, then solemnly affirming that your evidence is true.

Lawfully sworn also covers evidence in documentary form that is sworn. We call such statements affidavits. An affidavit is a written witness statement which is formally sworn in front of a person who can legally administer oaths, such as a judge, a solicitor or court officer.

Affidavits aren't used so much in trials these days. Most of the written witness statements you see have not been sworn as such. Just signing a statement as true isn't the same as swearing that it is true.

So we're not talking here about standard witness statements made under Section 89 of the Criminal Justice Act and MG11. They're not sworn in the technically required way, and that means they're not covered by Section 1 of the Perjury Act. Don't worry, there is an offence which covers false, unsworn witness statements, but it's under the Criminal Justice Act, not the Perjury Act. So that might be a little point to watch for in an exam question.

Right. where have we got to? We need a lawfully sworn oral statement or a written affidavit, which is made by a witness or an interpreter. Remember, interpreters have to take an oath when they're in court, swearing that they will truly translate what the witness says.

So if they do not truly translate it, that could be perjury. Of course, witness here covers the defendant. and claimant in civil cases. You might not always think of them as witnesses, but if they give evidence, then they are witnesses to their own case. The lawfully sworn statement has to be in or for a judicial proceeding, which as subsection 2 told us, includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal or person having by law power to hear, receive and examine evidence on oath.

So it covers trials and any other court hearing, courts-martial, all sorts of tribunals, inquests, and all the various legal proceedings where individual judges, magistrates or court officers can take evidence on oath. An application for a warrant, where you swear to the magistrate that your information is true, would be covered, as is evidence given by live TV link in a judicial hearing. eBay's statement is not.

made for a judicial proceeding and is false, then there's another offence to cover it. The lawfully sworn statement must be a statement material in that proceeding, which means that the content of the evidence, although perhaps not absolutely crucial to the case, must have some importance to it, and not be of just passing relevance. It's one which might affect the decision of the court, the outcome of the trial.

For example, whether a motorist has taken a drink between the time of having a road traffic accident and being breathalysed. would be a material issue, and a witness giving evidence about that matter would be making a statement material in that proceeding. Whether something is material to a particular case is a question of law for the judge. The lawfully sworn statement must be made willfully. Willful means deliberate or intentional, and it must be proved that any alleged perjury was not the result of a...

misunderstanding or an accidental slip of the tongue. As I've already said, court is a stressful environment, even for those of us familiar with it, and when you're under the pressure of cross-examination by counsel, it's easy to get flustered and make mistakes because of nerves. The statement must be made intentionally and not accidentally. That's important to remember.

And of course... remember that you don't commit perjury simply because what you say turns out to be untrue. You might be innocently mistaken.

That's not perjury. Perjury requires the witness to make a deliberate false statement which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true. Perjury is about lying, not simply about getting things wrong.

Evidence of opinion such as that given by experts, would be covered if the witness did not genuinely hold that opinion. Finally, but importantly, because it could easily crop up in an exam question, there's an unusual evidential quirk to perjury. Perjury requires corroboration. This means that some independent evidence that the statement given is false is required.

We need more than just the word of one person. Independent corroboration isn't technically required to prove that the defendant made the statement, or to prove his knowledge of its falsity, although it goes without saying that both of these issues do have to be proved to the satisfaction of the court, but they don't have to be corroborated as such. Proving that the defendant did actually make the false statement should be easy enough by using a court transcript, or the evidence of those present at the hearing where the false statement was made. To summarise then, look for a sworn statement that's spoken or written but on oath in a judicial proceeding of some kind.

The statement must be false and the person who makes it must know it is false, or at least they don't believe it is true. The statement must be material or important to the case and it must be made deliberately or intentionally. Remember, interpreters are covered as well as witnesses. and you'll need corroboration that the statement is false.

Transcript for:Understanding the Essentials of Perjury

Transcript for:
Understanding the Essentials of Perjury