[Pulpculture]

Can someone please post the definition (law) relating to "Perverting the course of justice"

[JS]

From PNLD:

This common law offence is committed where a person or persons:-
(a) acts or embarks upon a course of conduct
(b) which has a tendency to, and
© is intended to pervert,
(d) the course of public justice.

Listed below are some of the ways where conduct is capable of amounting to an offence:-

(a) Making false allegations;
(b) Perjury;
© Concealing offences;
(d) Obstructing the police ;
(e) Assisting others to evade arrest;
(f) Failing to prosecute;
(g) Procuring and indemnifying sureties;
(h) Interference with witnesses, evidence and jurors;
(i) Publication of matters calculated to prejudice a fair trial.

Some Cases

A positive act is required. In R v Headley, it was held that failing to respond to a summons was insufficient to warrant a charge of perverting the course of justice.

Any act or course of conduct which tends or is intended to interfere with the course of public justice can amount to an offence. In order to get a conviction, it is not sufficient to prove that the conduct actually did, or had a tendency to pervert the course of justice. The evidence must prove that the offender INTENDED that it would do so (R v Lalani 1999).

In R v Clark 2003, a motorist had failed to stop at the scene of a fatal road accident. He had probably had as much as 9 or 10 pints of lager. When he reported the matter to the police the next day, it was too late to obtain a positive breath test from him. However, the court stated that going home and not reporting the accident as soon as practicable was insufficient to justify such a charge on the basis that he was 'concealing evidence'. There had to be more. The conviction was quashed.

It is not necessary for the offender's motives to be the procurement of a false verdict or the defeat of the ends of justice. Trying to introduce genuine evidence by unlawful means is perverting the course of justice (e.g. A witness takes incriminating photos but refuses to give evidence. Steps are taken by the investigator to get another witness to introduce them as evidence). Attorney-General's Reference (1 of 2002).

This offence is sometimes referred to as 'attempting to pervert the course of justice', but the word "attempting" was misleading (R v K J Williams (1991) 92 CrAppR 158). A better expression would be "endeavouring to pervert the course of justice". It is therefore not necessary to charge a person with attempt to commit this offence under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

Use of this offence in relatively minor instances

There has been comment by the courts where this offence has been used for relatively minor attempts to pervert the course of justice and it is charged alongside a offence which is serious enough to permit the offenders conduct to be taken into account when sentencing for the main offence. For example, in R v Sookoo 2002, a shoplifter gave a false name to the police which was initially accepted by them. He was then charged and bailed. He was re-arrested several weeks later and put before a court charged with both the theft and the above offence. The Court of Appeal said (the below is slightly modified to help summarise the point):

'Where, as here, an offender had attempted to hide his identity and inevitably failed, the prosecutors should not include a specific count of perverting the course of justice. Such conduct may serve to aggravate the original offence and the judge may well think it right to increase the sentence by an appropriate length.

There are such cases which must include serious aggravating features in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. There will be cases where a great deal of police time and resources are involved in putting the matter right, or there may be cases where innocent members of the public have their names given and they have been the subject of questioning and even detention.'

That is not the situation in this case. This was an unsophisticated attempt which was doomed to failure. His true identity soon was discovered.

Much the same was said in the contemporaneous case of R v Cotter, Clair and Wynn 2002.



MODE OF TRIAL AND PENALTY INDICTMENT Imprisonment

POWERS OF ARREST arrestable offence


James 5112FH

[Sidious]

It is a common law offence, and as such there is no "definition" per se.

However conduct likely to pervert the course of justice is generally held to be "where a person acts or embarks upon a course of conduct which has a tendency to, and is intended to pervert the course of public justice"

Examples could include making false statements, false allegations, false alibies or false evidence in court.

Hope this helps.

[Surf007]

If police officer conceals evidence away from fellow officers and interviewing officers and from a eye witness
is this an offence under perjury ?

if so which criminal act is it in breach off ?

[Akki]

Surf007, on Nov 2 2007, 7:58 PM, said:

If police officer conceals evidence away from fellow officers and interviewing officers and from a eye witness
is this an offence under perjury ?

if so which criminal act is it in breach off ?

It's not perjury. Perjury is lying under oath.

How can you conceal evidence from an eye witness? We don't disclose evidence to witnesses.

With regards to a police officer deliberately witholding evidence it sounds like it could be perverting the course of justice. However, as stated above it is common law, so their is no statute.

[Kevinl03]

Surf007, on Nov 2 2007, 8:58 PM, said:

If police officer conceals evidence away from fellow officers and interviewing officers and from a eye witness
is this an offence under perjury ?

if so which criminal act is it in breach off ?

It's not perjury, that can only occur when in court.

Depends on the importance of the evidence, what it is and what is contained within it, and how relevant it is to the offence or incident. It also depends whether the "fellow officers and interviewing officers" you mention actually had anything to do with the incident concerned, and if so, what that involvement was and whether it was necessary for them to know about what was witheld or concealed. Regarding the eye witness, there is no requirement for officers to tell witnesses about evidence they might have gathered, especially if it's of a sensitive nature. It's hard to make any comment without further information and just to point out that if you are speaking from experience, either as an officer who has witnessed or been involved in something similar or someone who has had contact with the police in some way, PS.com is not really the place to seek legal advice or opinions on how to resolve the matter...

Anyway if it's evidence of vital importance that would have an impact on the outcome of police processes or court proceedings if the officers you mention HAD known about it, then it would probably be an offence of misconduct in a public office and/or perverting the course of justice (common law).

However don't confuse acts of witholding evidence, with the normal practice of the police or CPS not using some evidence or paperwork related to an incident ("unused material"), which will still be disclosed (ie the relevant parties will be aware of it).

[g_attrill]

kevinl03, on Nov 2 2007, 8:13 PM, said:

It's not perjury, that can only occur when in court.

Perjury includes any statement under oath too, eg. lying on the S172 document you sign to state who was driving a vehicle would be perjury.

[Gizzy]

Under oath, affirmation or in a court.

[Akki]

Gizzy, on Nov 3 2007, 12:29 AM, said:

Under oath, affirmation or in a court.

No, just under oath or affirmation, in or out of court is irrelevant.

You can lie in court all you like unless under oath or affirmation - it will not be perjury.

Could be in contempt, but it wouldn't be perjury.

This post has been edited by Akki: 03 November 2007 - 03:46 PM

[endure]

I think JS hit the nail on the head. There have been some posts where the scenario is very flimpsy and people can grasp at an offcene which seem sto fit. There are lots of acions where 'pervert the course' could be included. It would come back to the oldr style of prosecution where only the appropriate offences are dealt with. It does seem in some of the postings that the idea is to squeeze as many offences out of the same facts as possible.
One of the cases used in JS's posting is worth remebering, some of the actions by the defendant, although not being part of the main offence can be used as aggravating factors for sentencing. As I understand it, if seperate offences are used, but fail at court, that bit of evidence can't (shouldn't) be used for the other offences that remain. So you end up losing the charged offence and can't put that evidence up as aggravating factors.

Nice one JS

[bensonby]

Akki, on Nov 3 2007, 3:45 PM, said:

No, just under oath or affirmation, in or out of court is irrelevant.

You can lie in court all you like unless under oath or affirmation - it will not be perjury.

Could be in contempt, but it wouldn't be perjury.

If you refuse to take the oath is it contempt of court?

(could it be contempt of court - its the judge's call isn't it)

[Akki]

Stick to many counts on the indictment and it will be 'bad for duplicity'. The judge will be all too happy to tell you that too.

[bensonby]

Pulpculture, on Dec 18 2003, 4:19 PM, said:

Can someone please post the definition (law) relating to "Perverting the course of justice"

it'll be caselaw somewhere - obviously that is open to evolution and interpretation...

[Akki]

bensonby, on Nov 3 2007, 4:09 PM, said:

it'll be caselaw somewhere - obviously that is open to evolution and interpretation...

JS's (a) - (d) definition is the definition.

It comes from R v Vreones [1891] 1 QB 360 and R v Andrews [1973] QB 422

[Patient]

kevinl03, on Nov 2 2007, 8:13 PM, said:

It's not perjury, that can only occur when in court.

Not true Kevin mate; I was a Major in the army and entitled to hear oaths being sworn, that would have been perjury if porkie pies had been said. Equally, Perjury by Sect 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.

Note the in judical proceedings, wonder if thats the catch all?

[Akki]

Basically if you swear an oath and tell lies it's likely to be perjury. Most times you swear an oath you are doing so for some kind of legal issue. Whether that be in an actual court or when making an affidavit.

[JS]

endure, on Nov 3 2007, 4:06 PM, said:

I think JS hit the nail on the head. There have been some posts where the scenario is very flimpsy and people can grasp at an offcene which seem sto fit. There are lots of acions where 'pervert the course' could be included. It would come back to the oldr style of prosecution where only the appropriate offences are dealt with. It does seem in some of the postings that the idea is to squeeze as many offences out of the same facts as possible.
One of the cases used in JS's posting is worth remebering, some of the actions by the defendant, although not being part of the main offence can be used as aggravating factors for sentencing. As I understand it, if seperate offences are used, but fail at court, that bit of evidence can't (shouldn't) be used for the other offences that remain. So you end up losing the charged offence and can't put that evidence up as aggravating factors.

Nice one JS

To be fair, none of that post was my own work ... it was just copied and pasted from the PNLD all those years ago

James