Court plea "Not Guilty", verdict "Guilty" - no charge of Perjury. Why is that???

[FenceFurniture]

Without going into details of the case that prompted this thought, I wonder why it is that someone can plead "Not Guilty", then have the case against them proved "beyond all reasonable doubt" by a jury vote of 12-0, and not have a subsequent charge of Perjury laid against them.

Clearly much of the evidence that they give has to be lies and fabrications, including the original plea. In the case at mind, there was "I didn't do it", "I wasn't even there", along with several other preposterous "performances" and suggestions.

Any ideas? :?

[NCArcher]

I think only a witness can be charged with perjury. You can say, I'm innocent, I don't know what you are talking about and it is up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are telling porkies. If they can't prove it then legally you are not telling lies and they will probably never find the bodies anywa..........................ahem. Forget I said that.

[dabbler]

Only an armchair lawyer, but surely it would depends on many things. Some things that spring to mind are:
a) Did the person convicted actually give evidence in court (and commit perjury) ?
b) Maybe the crown/court determined that a further charge of perjury was unwarranted in the circumstances.
or
c) Maybe one conviction rules out another.

Just some thoughts.

[Sturdee]

Without going into specifics when an accused answers the judge as to his pleading he answers from the dock as an accused and this is not under oath and as such no perjury is committed. If he makes no pleading then the court will take it as a not guilty plea.

However if the accused voluntarily takes the witness stand ( as against making statements from the dock) and gives evidence in the case against him then that part is under oath and if he then perjures himself he is subject to further prosecution for perjury.

However I doubt that a jury's finding could be used as evidence of the accused perjury.


Peter.

[chrisb691]

The plea itself is not evidentiary, and perjury relates to evidence?

[Evanism]

You are not under oath when you make the plea.

As for providing false evidence as an accused, you can. If you are sworn under oath it is Defendant Perjury.

There is a good chunk of discussion regarding it. If a defendant's lawyer knows he is perjuring himself there are some strong arguments about the evils/morality of this situation and what to report.

There are two components that act together: Actus Reus and Mens Rea.

A person can proclaim their innocence, which is presumed, but to assert fabrications as truth while under oath is a criminal act in itself.

Its a good line of thinking. If the person is found innocent due to their perjury, they cannot be re-prosecuted (jeopardy) and the prosecution cannot reasonably go after them again with perjury (malicious prosecution).. its good stuff...

But to the question, they can.

[FenceFurniture]

Interesting. I clouded what I really meant with the thread title, and I'm specifically thinking of the evidence given under oath, rather than the plea.

The case in point: "I wasn't there, never been there" was given as evidence. Film/video footage emerges to prove otherwise - "Didn't know where I was", which requires a John Elliot response from the Judge :D.

[DaveTTC]

interesting thought. I ponder why can a witness be charged with perjury and not the accused. Whether you are under oath or not it is lie


Dave the turning cowboy

turning wood into art

[Ashore]

You are innocent until proven guilty.
So it follows at the time someone's plea is not guilty they are in fact not guilty, because at that point their guilt has not been proven.

[Evanism]

The case in point: "I wasn't there, never been there" was given as evidence. Film/video footage emerges to prove otherwise - "Didn't know where I was", which requires a John Elliot response from the Judge :D.

This goes to Actus Reus and Mens Rea

How can one prove a lie if they simply forgot? Or can't remember... or remember it differently... we all know this happens with startling frequency in politicians, police or businessmen who are under the hammer.

I cannot recall, I don't remember, I believe I was doing something else that day, not to the best of my recollection.... never answer "no". Always equivocate.

The lie is only a lie when the lie is directly contradicted and it is shown that you lied. Simply being show a receipt, video or even a photo with the smoking gun in your hand... errr, umm, not to the best of my knowledge... are you sure the smoking gun in my hand is the one that killed the man or is it the same model?.... next question "are you familiar with a range of guns?" (I.e of the 14,600 types of gun you can explicitly say this was the exact gun) or better "did you simply see a gun".... (ergo, it could be a 1948 revolver or a Flash Gordon Ray Gun?).....

I worked literally side by side with the best IP Lawyer you could imagine for 6 years. Good mate and work chum. We had a rollicking time and he pumped me full of this stuff daily. It was a bit sad really learning this stuff, we assume things are rather cut and dry. Or that peoples memories are either good or accurate: they are universally hopeless. What I learned is that lawyers are trained to think in ways we would find simply incredible.

Here is a good example. You are in a pub fight. There are a few blokes involved. One has his ear bitten off. You are seen spitting it out. The lawyer will ask the witness, "did you, or anyone else, see the ear being bitten off by my client?"... "No, but I saw him spit it out".... Res ipsa loquitur. No more questions. Case closed. You are free to go. (Res ipsa loquitur: the thing speak for itself...implying the ear simply fell into your mouth in the fracas, or there was some other explanation, of which the defence is not required to provide.).

[FenceFurniture]

You are innocent until proven guilty.
So it follows at the time someone's plea is not guilty they are in fact not guilty, because at that point their guilt has not been proven.Yebbut I'm talking about lying under oath to vindicate the not-guilty plea.

[artme]

I guess it's abit like some thing being blackmail or not.

We have refused to pay a "tradesman"" for poorly done work.

He demanded money by a certain date or he would do two things; take us to court and make a report to the council that would cost us money.

We still refused to pay, and in any case his grounds for a report to council were baseless but the police would not entertain a charge of attempted blackmail.

We also had a previous case of a fellow who owed us money. He was given plenty of leeway and put two witnesses up who lied through through their teeth. The judgement went our way and the adjudicator basically accused the "witnesses" of telling pokies. Nothing was done to them.

[shedman]

It is a sad fact but very few prosecutions are taken out over perjury. In my experience as a barrister if a perjury charge was always laid after a person, defendant or witness, told a lie under oath then the courts would never come up for air.

It may be that there is a fear that if perjury charges were often brought many people would resist being called as witnesses.

To prove perjury you need to be able to prove the person telling the lie deliberately lied and was not merely mistaken.

In regards to the defendant. Firstly the person pleading not guilty is as previously pointed out merely asserting their current state and calling on the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If a barrister or other lawyer is aware that their client is guilty they are prohibited from allowing them to give evidence that someone else did the offense. If your client insists on giving evidence and you know they are lying you have to withdraw as their lawyer but you cannot tell the court why.

If you are being questionsed by police about a charge they are allowed by law to tell you lies - "your partner told us you did it together". So maybe it is not unexpected that a defendant may feel they should also be able to lie.

If a person who is guilty pleads not guilty but is then convicted they will receive a more significant penalty and maybe if they were then charged with perjury and convicted the one sentence for both offenses would not be much greater.

In many cases the defendant never gives evidence and this is often because they are advised that the prosecution will be able to show their statements to be lies.

In all a very imperfect system but one that we still have not found a better replacement for.

[FenceFurniture]

Thanks shedman...I think...


It is a sad fact but very few prosecutions are taken out over perjury. In my experience as a barrister if a perjury charge was always laid after a person, defendant or witness, told a lie under oath then the courts would never come up for air. Yes, no doubt.

If you are being questionsed by police about a charge they are allowed by law to tell you lies - "your partner told us you did it together". So maybe it is not unexpected that a defendant may feel they should also be able to lie.That's bizarre. So I guess that means that one could respond (to the police) "No, either my partner or you is lying. I know that you are allowed to lie during questioning".

Now I'm NOT saying that this is necessarily a smart thing to do......

[artme]

A very cynical view of the world there FF!!

[A Duke]

Hi,
I grew up under Roman Dutch Law, guilty unless the accused can prove innocence. The reasonable doubt is on the other side. A much more scary situation.
Regards

[Bushmiller]

A very cynical view of the world there FF!!

Arthur

Yes, cynical indeed, but not an unreasonable assumption particularly regarding the law.

The law seems to be harsh where you are unable to afford it and magnanimous where you are wealthy, in a position of power or have unlimited resources to legal aid (not the pro bono type).

As Shedman pointed out the system falls down on many counts, but it is what we have. It doesn't mean I/we have to like it.

Regards
Paul

[DaveTTC]

Could not put it better paul