What is Judicial Bias? Criminal Law Queensland. See all Criminal Law Queensland. Criminal Law New South Wales. Criminal Law Australian Capital Territory. Criminal Law Victoria. See all Criminal Law Victoria. Criminal Law South Australia.
See all Criminal Law South Australia. Criminal Law Tasmania. See all Criminal Law Tasmania. Criminal Law Western Australia. See all Criminal Law Western Australia. Criminal Law Northern Territory. See all Criminal Law Northern Territory. See all Civil Law. Hacked Business Emails, Who is Liable? The Client or The Business? What is a Letter of Demand? What is Estoppel?
Civil Law Australian Capital Territory. Civil Law New South Wales. Civil Law Northern Territory. See all Civil Law Northern Territory. Civil Law Queensland.
See all Civil Law Queensland. Civil Law South Australia. See all Civil Law South Australia. Civil Law Tasmania. See all Civil Law Tasmania. Civil Law Victoria. See all Civil Law Victoria. Civil Law Western Australia.
See all Civil Law Western Australia. See all Family Law. The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act s. The course of justice starts when:. In R v Cotter and Others [] EWCA Crim it was held that where the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that is required is that the person making the false allegation intended that it should be taken seriously by the police.
The offence of perverting the course of justice is sometimes referred to as "attempting to pervert the course of justice". It does not matter whether or not the acts result in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done.
The words "attempting to" should not appear in the charge. The offence of perverting the course of justice overlaps with a number of other statutory offences. Before preferring such a charge, consideration must be given to the possible alternatives referred to in this Charging Standard and, where appropriate, any of the following offences:.
Perverting the course of justice covers a wide range of conduct. A charge of perverting the course of justice should, however be reserved for serious cases of interference with the administration of justice.
Regard must be had to the factors outlined in General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and in Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance, which help to identify the seriousness of the conduct. If the seriousness of the offence can properly be reflected in any other charge, which would provide the court with adequate sentencing powers, and permit a proper presentation of the case as a whole, that other charge should be used unless:.
Note that in R v Sookoo EWCA Crim ; the Court cautioned against adding a count of perverting the course of justice when the conduct could properly be treated as an aggravating feature of the principal offence. However, consecutive sentences may be imposed when the conduct is a separate and subsequent act, in which case a count of perverting the course of conduct should be considered. The following are examples of acts which may constitute the offence, although General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance should be carefully considered before preferring a charge of perverting the course of justice:.
In deciding whether or not it is in the public interest to proceed, consideration should be given to:. A prosecution may not be in the public interest if the principal proceedings are at a very early stage and the action taken by the defendant had only a minor impact on those proceedings. Cases alleging perverting the course of justice arising from a false or a retracted complaint of rape or other sexual offence or domestic abuse should be handled by a prosecutor with the appropriate levels of skill and experience in light of the complex and sensitive issues that are likely to fall to be considered.
All these cases must be referred to the Chief Crown Prosecutor for approval of the charging decision and consultation on subsequent decisions which terminate proceedings or substantially alter the charge. Additionally, the Director of Legal Services Team must be notified and briefed in all these cases where there is a decision to charge before this decision is communicated.
In line with the Core Quality Standards, prosecutors should record and explain as fully as possible the evidential considerations and public interest factors they have taken into account when making their decisions.
The most common example is when a suspect provides false details to an officer - whether it involves giving a false name, date of birth, address or a combination of the three. Usually in such cases the facts of the basic offence often motoring are not in dispute. In the absence of any other aggravating features, it is unlikely that it will be appropriate to charge perverting the course of justice in the following circumstances:. In these circumstances, the alternative offences of wasting police time and obstructing the police should be considered, but may not be necessary in the public interest depending upon the nature of the misrepresentation and the circumstances of the offence.
Regard should be had to the case of R v Sookoo EWCA Crim , which cautioned against adding a charge of perverting the course of justice when the conduct could properly be treated as an aggravating feature of the principal offence, and R v Cotter EWCA Crim , which suggests the use of offences other than perverting the course of justice when other individuals are not exposed to risk.
Note that extended time limits apply to some summary only motoring offences and the principal offence can be prosecuted beyond the 6 months' time limit. Note also section 49 Road Traffic Offenders Act This allows a Court to re-sentence an individual who has deceived it about circumstances which were or might have been taken into account in deciding whether, or for how long, to disqualify that person.
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 , 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 2 Cr. 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.
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.
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.
Prosecutors 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 deceit has 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. The decision to prosecute a defence witness for perjury partly depends on whether the defendant in the earlier trial was convicted:. There are a number of offences akin to perjury in the perjury act which, though not detailed in this charging standard, should be considered, including:.
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 , an offence is committed under section 89 of that Act.
If the false evidence is tendered in written form under Section 5 Magistrates' Courts Act , an offence is committed under s. The Perjury Act does not cover making an untrue statement to obtain a passport.
It is an offence contrary to section 36 Criminal Justice Act and there is discretion whether to charge under section 36 or whether to charge for attempting to obtain a passport by deception. Where the defendant has not succeeded in obtaining a passport charging the offence under section 36 should usually be preferred. Section 11 of the European Communities Act creates an offence of making a false statement which is known to be false or not believed to be true in sworn evidence before the European Court.
Section 80 of the Civil Partnership Act creates an offence of knowingly giving a false declaration, notice, certificate or statement in order to procure the formation of a civil partnership.
Attempts are often made to threaten or persuade a witness not to give evidence, or to give evidence in a way that is favourable to the defendant. Such offences go to the heart of the administration of justice. In this article I will look at the law in respect of Perverting the Course of Justice and potential defence and sentences upon conviction.
If you are accused of or are worried about being prosecuted for this offence it is important to seek legal advice as things are more complex than they first appear. To establish this the authorities do not have to show that the tendency or possibility in fact happened; there must merely be the possibility that what the accused if not corrected might lead to an injustice occurring. It is also worth noting that an ulterior intention of the defendant in respect of their motives can be largely irrelevant, for example where a person makes a knowingly false statement in pursuance of court proceedings but only does so in order to protect someone else, this will still be perverting the course of justice, the laudability of the motive being held to have been largely irrelevant: Att.
The answer is found in R v Selvage and Morgan [] where the Court of Appeal gives the classic definition:. That conduct includes giving false information to the police with the object of among other things putting the police on a false trail So even if no offence has actually been committed, the interference with an investigation can amount to perverting the course of justice.
It is clear that there can be many ways of committing this offence, below are some of the most common:. The Press and members of the public should be careful what is written about Court proceedings, especially online.
The publication of matters that are intended to prejudice the trial of a case at Court can be an offence of perverting the course of public justice: R. Fisher Although this is an old case the implications for those posting on popular social media are relevant today and such postings attach as much liability are that in traditional print media.
The fact that matters may be published under a pseudonym will often not prevent detection and arrest. Financial services and pensions offences. Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences. Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences. Insolvency offences and Companies Act offences. Local Authority prosecutions.
Non-business related crime. Abuse of process. Administration of justice offences. Admissibility and exclusion of evidence. Commencing proceedings. Sign-in Help. The following Corporate Crime practice note produced in partnership with Thomas Evans of 3 Paper Buildings provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering: Perverting the course of justice Elements of the offence of perverting the course of justice Acts or embarks on a course of conduct Tendency to pervert Intention Pervert the course of public justice Requirement for serious aggravating features Conduct which may amount to perverting the course of justice Sentences for perverting the course of justice Perverting the course of justice Elements of the offence of perverting the course of justice Perverting the course of justice is a common law offence which can only be tried on indictment in the Crown Court.
Intention The prosecution must prove either an intent to pervert the course of justice or an intent to do something which if achieved, would pervert the course of justice. Access this content for free with a trial of LexisPSL and benefit from: Instant clarification on points of law Smart search Workflow tools 36 practice areas.
Back Step 1 of 2 Basic information. Step 1 Step 2 Name. Miss Mrs. Name Click to edit. Name No Content These fields are required.
0コメント