Telling Lies Under Oath

[cassa333]

Hi,

Here is the situation.

I had a 'hearing' with the court clerk and the debtors ( one at a time). The meetings took place in the court but not a court room, just a small room.

They said an oath that the information they give is true to their knowledge and at the end they each signed their individual paperwork.

Now I know they have lied and unless they doctor some of the paperwork they have to present within ten days time it will show the have lied.

Are there any ramifications for them? What will the court do when it finds they have lied?

Thanks

[Buenchico]

Anyone lying under oath in respect of judicial proceedings, irrespective of whether that oath was taken in a court, renders themself liable to prosecution under the Perjury Act 1911 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 and the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985). The maximum sentence is one of 7 years imprisonment. The offender could also be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

Courts tend to take such matters very seriously. Jeffrey Archer lied under oath during civil proceedings and was convicted of both perjury and perverting the course of justice, resulting in him receiving a prison sentence of four years.

[THECORBYLOON]

In court cases, the lies need not automatically lead to a charge of perjury. If the evidence were not material to the case or if it would not have affected the outcome, a prosecution would not be likely.

[Hopkirk]

Surely the ramifications would just be the case would be found against them.

[cassa333]

Ok Thank you.

So it is still perjury when done in front of the clerk and not a judge?

They claimed to be seeking a DRO but had no paperwork and the rather simple spread sheet they had supposedly done from the CAB didn't show any payments from the job she has (but has claimed she is unemployed). So they are not being exactly truthful to me, the court, the CAB and DRO company (if they even have one).

In fact there paperwork shows their income almost exactly matches their outgoings. Therefore in my opinion whatever she earns (that she is hiding) could be paid to me to pay off her debts!!

How would I get information on her employment? I very much doubt HMRC will simply tell me her employment status and her employer will be very careful about data breaches.

[cassa333]

Hopkirk it is just a civil CCJ case. They were issued a warrant to attend court for questioning on their finances. Even though the court papers explained what paperwork they were to bring they didn't bring any.

They have been given ten days to produce it. Because I know she is working, I know they have lied about it and are hiding her payments through their sons bank account because they thought there was no right for his information to be given.

[Peter Pedant]

not an awful lot to be honest

once the untruth is obvious then the order will be adjusted to take the readjusted information into account -

conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is the minor perjury charge and you have to poss people off big time for that to happen

Perjury - which has lasted since 1906 Perjury Act is reserved for biggies - starts off with 2 y in da slammer - is reserved to cases which have gone to a perjured verdict and have to be unpicked/appealed
Big deal to the Perjury Act is the necessity for an independent witness to be present at the perjured act (no not the event in court)

Pretty uncommon - Tommy Sheridan, Jeffrey Archer, and Jonathan Aitken spring to mind

[THECORBYLOON]

Since perverting the course of justice carries a maximum life sentence, I'm not sure why you say it's the minor form of perjury.

[Peter Pedant]

Corbo
because I have read a lot of cases
it is the one where if you stand in for someone's points on a driving licence and guff like that

Maximum sentence is NOT a guideline to actual sentence, and lots in the C19 went around as 7 y or 14 y
and actual sentence is determined by the sentencing guidelines ( this is Law and not chaddabank ) , Chris Buen has quite astounding knowledge of the likely sentences in a wide variety of cases

The charging guidelines which have hardly ever been cited in Law AB - say that perjury charges should be preferred when a verdict has been brought in - clearly a perverse verdict - where the courts cant say - "oops sorry about that, where is my red pen" but have instead to have a separate hearing and all the other lah-di-dah

see Cross and Jones Criminal Law which hasnt changed much on perjury since I read it in 1973 ( and then did something else ) and re read it in 2017 because a nephew was reading law

In cassa's case we are deffo at the oops sorry where is my red pen stage

[Peter Pedant]

// So it is still perjury when done in front of the clerk and not a judge? //

Jeffrey Archer ( with monica coghlan hur hur hur) was done for swearing a false affidavit which WASN'T used in court. ( so his case is a precedent for not requiring the act to be sworn in fron of a judge) - but it had to be unwound and Jeff had to pay back the money ( and do the time)