Why isn't this Perjury?

drunkmonkey

"You have told this court a pack of lies' - man withdraws €60k injury claim after photos of him bodybuilding and playing football shown in court.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/you-have-told-this-court-a-pack-of-lies-man-withdraws-60k-injury-claim-after-photos-of-him-bodybuilding-and-playing-football-shown-in-court-37998356.html

I don't understand why this chap can just withdraw his claim and get away with a finger wagging.
It's been proven his lied to everyone, surley there should be some penalty.

HeidiHeidi

My understanding is it hasn't actually been proved that he told lies.


The defence barrister alleged that he told lies, and he withdrew his claim.


But I agree that getting off scot free, with no costs applied for, just means it's a free spin of the wheel for chancers like that (although I presume his own legal team will have to be paid).


A perjury charge would have to be a whole new case. Has anyone ever been done for perjury at all? I can't recall any cases (not that I'm a legal expert in any sense of the term!)

ETA - this article explains it a bit https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/perjury-bid-to-punish-people-who-make-false-personal-injury-claims-37448354.html

hullaballoo

Firstly he wasn't found to have lied by the court, the sensationalist soundbite quoted was something that was said to him in cross examination by the defence counsel.

The case was then withdrawn meaning no findings of fact were made.

Secondly, the threshold to establish perjury as a crime is different to establishing as a fact that he lied in a civil trial.

Thirdly, it may well be perjury all the same.

Marcusm

That would have to be dealt with after the case. His perjury was only demonstrated when he was in the witness box yesterday or whenever it was. He seems particularly stupid to make those statements given the public evidence to the contrary.

Charles Ingles

Because it's a civil case.
Also these high profile cases are use to warn people off lodging can claims.
The publicly is punishment enough

neris

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Because it's a civil case.
Also these high profile cases are use to warn people off lodging can claims.
The publicly is punishment enough

No its not

Charles Ingles

neris wrote: »

No its not

Why?

cruizer101

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Why?

Because some people have thick skin and no shame so public embarrassment isn't enough to dissuade them from making false claims. Fines, convictions and potentially jail time would have a far greater effect.

Charles Ingles

cruizer101 wrote: »

Because some people have thick skin and no shame so public embarrassment isn't enough to dissuade them from making false claims. Fines, convictions and potentially jail time would have a far greater effect.

But ott he chanced his arm with an insurance claim.
Prison should be kept for violent offenders and those who don't pay their TV licence

blackwhite

The bit that grates with me more is

Mr English said the defendants were not seeking an order for legal costs against him.

I can fully understand that RSA have assessed that it'll cost more to pursue him for costs than they are ever likely to recover from the little scrote - but it still sticks in the craw to think that he's getting away without having to pay a penny for the costs he has caused (and which will be passed straight on to RSA customers).

drunkmonkey

Yea I noticed that. There's absolutely no deterrent if you haven't anything worth going after. It needs to be punished with Jail time if they can't pay. The law already allows for that though it just doesn't seem to be enforced.

Eggs For Dinner

Charles Ingles wrote: »

But ott he chanced his arm with an insurance claim.
Prison should be kept for violent offenders and those who don't pay their TV licence

Nobody was ever sent to prison for not paying their TV licence

drunkmonkey

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Nobody was ever sent to prison for not paying their TV licence

About 400 a year go to jail for it.

blackwhite

drunkmonkey wrote: »

About 400 a year go to jail for it.

Nobody in the history of the State has been jailed for failing to pay their TV licence. The only punishment for failing to pay your TV licence is a fine.


Refusing to pay a court-ordered fine, however, is something that can and does result in jail time.

Two very different offences - ignoring a court order is significantly more serious.

Charles Ingles

I see what you did there.
You you're good

PhilOssophy

Because nobody has been convicted of perjury for years, you can go in and tell every lie to a court and if you are found to be lying walk out scot free.
If you are taking a fraudulent claim and found to be blatantly lying, I would have no problem paying to keep you locked up for a year - I will be paying for it with my insurance premium otherwise.

Force Carrier

It would be as difficult for a Court Room as any other institution to operate if everyone had to start telling the truth.

Judges, Counsels, Guards, Witnesses and Defendants all lie one time or another.
Human Beings lie constantly. If there is such a thing as objective truth then we all just differ in our exact distance away from it at any given point.

ohnonotgmail

There is a bill going through the Dail at the moment that would make perjury a statutory offence. that should make it easier to prosecute than at the moment.

spurious

ohnonotgmail wrote:

There is a bill going through the Dail at the moment that would make perjury a statutory offence. that should make it easier to prosecute than at the moment.

If they could tackle the colluding solicitors too that would be good. Too many cases getting to court that should have been stopped at the door of the solicitor's office under the 'would you go away out of that, you chancer' act.

PhilOssophy

spurious wrote: »

If they could tackle the colluding solicitors too that would be good. Too many cases getting to court that should have been stopped at the door of the solicitor's office under the 'would you go away out of that, you chancer' act.

Or the "Whiplash = we'll pay for 10 physio visits to sort you out" act.

NUTLEY BOY

The only way to substantiate some of the opinions on this would be to have let the matter go to a verdict .

Offering a plaintiff the opportunity to withdraw an action in consideration of no application for costs is a good strategy.
However, that will have been done on the basis of the state of all of the potential evidence not just the bits we heard about.
Despite the extracts we heard of we don't know if the plaintiff still had some elements of validity which represented potential exposure for the defendant.

Even if the action was struck out and an order for party and party costs secured against the plaintiff it would probably not be enforceable at a practical level anyway.
Attempting to enforce an order for costs is the point at which it becomes a financially punitive expedition to nowhere.
BTW an order for costs is not to be had just for the asking even though the general rule is that costs usually follow the event.
The trial judge decides the issue of costs.

As far as the future is concerned the plaintiff may now be considered as something of a marked man.
Specifically, if he presents a personal injuries claim at some future date the record of this case will be thrown in his face on cross-examination with great damage to his credibility irrespective of the merits of such a future case. This can be done even though the present case was struck out (presumably with no orders).

As far as perjury goes I think it is a common law offence.
I don't think that perjury ever made it on to the Irish statute books in a form that would encompass a case like to this one.
Perjury may be mentioned in statutes which relate to other types of matters as distinct from a personal injuries action.
Even if there was a prosecution for perjury the case against the accused would have to be established beyond reasonable doubt.
If this matter was considered by the DPP I would bet that it would probably fail the relevant tests including whether or not there was a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction.
I suspect that there is no danger of a prosecution in something like this.

ohnonotgmail

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

As far as perjury goes I think it is a common law offence.
I don't think that perjury ever made it on to the Irish statute books in a form that would encompass a case like to this one.
Perjury may be mentioned in statutes which relate to other types of matters as distinct from a personal injuries action.
Even if there was a prosecution for perjury the case against the accused would have to be established beyond reasonable doubt.
If this matter was considered by the DPP I would bet that it would probably fail the relevant tests including whether or not there was a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction.
I suspect that there is no danger of a prosecution in something like this.

It is still a common law offence but there is a bill going through the Dail at the moment that will make it a statutory offence.

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

As far as perjury goes I think it is a common law offence.
I don't think that perjury ever made it on to the Irish statute books in a form that would encompass a case like to this one.
Perjury may be mentioned in statutes which relate to other types of matters as distinct from a personal injuries action.

It is indeed a common law offence, however S2 of the Perjury Act 1586 which prescribes the punishment (and is furthered by the 1729 and 1791 Acts) would it seems cover any type of case:-

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1586/act/1/enacted/en/print.html

And be it further enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, that if any person or persons, after the end of this Parliament, either by the subornation, unlawfull procurement, sinister perswasion or means of any others, or by their owne act, consent or agreement, willfully or corruptly commit any manner of willfull perjurie, by his or their deposition in any the courts before mentioned, or before any the judges, commissioners, or officers before mentioned, or being examined ad perpetuam rei memoriam: that then every person and persons so offending, and being thereof duely convicted or attainted, by the laws of this realm, shall for his or their offence loose and forfeit twenty pounds, and to have imprisonment by the space of six months...

The 1586, 1729 and 1791 Acts are still in force, the Perjury and Related Offences Bill will see the first two revoked and the 1791 Act retained and amended.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Even if there was a prosecution for perjury the case against the accused would have to be established beyond reasonable doubt.
If this matter was considered by the DPP I would bet that it would probably fail the relevant tests including whether or not there was a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction.
I suspect that there is no danger of a prosecution in something like this.

Indeed, perjury is very difficult to prove as it's a crime of intent and requires under common law at least two witnesses to corroborate the falsehood of any testimony made on oath or another witness with additional substantial corroborative evidence.

drunkmonkey

You have the accused driver and photo and video evidence is that not your two?

Shelflife

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Because it's a civil case.
Also these high profile cases are use to warn people off lodging can claims.
The publicly is punishment enough

its not enough, as someone who was on the defending side of one of these "claims" its a nightmare.

You have to get all the relevant paperwork, recordings (videos) etc together, endless interviews with insurance companies and then you have the long wait with it always hanging over you.

You feel that you have the truth on your side but you are worried that the judge will take pity on the poor little girl who "hurt" herself at work and find against you on a technicality.

Just when you think its all gone away ... Boom you get the letter and all the fears and worries are back again, sleepless nights etc, its all very well for those of you who spend your days in a court room but for everyone else its a nightmare.

on the day we started proceedings ( on the steps ) at 60k plus costs and thats when you realise that its real and scary !

We were lucky that the insurance company believed me and got a PI on the job, she lied to all and sundry including her solicitor who were left high and dry.

She effectively got a free shot, it was withdrawn in court , playing high stakes bluffs until the last minute.

There was no publicity in this case as it was withdrawn but she made our life hell and we had to pay our own costs (added on to my premiums).

Pronto63

Shelflife wrote: »

its not enough, as someone who was on the defending side of one of these "claims" its a nightmare.

You have to get all the relevant paperwork, recordings (videos) etc together, endless interviews with insurance companies and then you have the long wait with it always hanging over you.

You feel that you have the truth on your side but you are worried that the judge will take pity on the poor little girl who "hurt" herself at work and find against you on a technicality.

Just when you think its all gone away ... Boom you get the letter and all the fears and worries are back again, sleepless nights etc, its all very well for those of you who spend your days in a court room but for everyone else its a nightmare.

on the day we started proceedings ( on the steps ) at 60k plus costs and thats when you realise that its real and scary !

We were lucky that the insurance company believed me and got a PI on the job, she lied to all and sundry including her solicitor who were left high and dry.

She effectively got a free shot, it was withdrawn in court , playing high stakes bluffs until the last minute.

There was no publicity in this case as it was withdrawn but she made our life hell and we had to pay our own costs (added on to my premiums).

They should go after costs and let the judgement just sit there in case the scrote ever wins the lotto or wins another compo claim!
Then the insurance company should be able to get full costs

drunkmonkey

Could you take her for slander/defemation, probably just throwing away more money though. It's not perjury until after she puts her hand on the Bible from my understanding.

Carawaystick

GM228 wrote: »

It is indeed a common law offence, however S2 of the Perjury Act 1586 which prescribes the punishment (and is furthered by the 1729 and 1791 Acts) would it seems cover any type of case:-

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1586/act/1/enacted/en/print.html


The 1586, ... Acts are still in force,

to drag this thread off topic a bit, the 1586 act is written using a foreign and dead language which is not mentioned in the Bunreacht.

What is the basis for allowing a statute using such language to stand?

GM228

Carawaystick wrote: »

to drag this thread off topic a bit, the 1586 act is written using a foreign and dead language which is not mentioned in the Bunreacht.

What is the basis for allowing a statute using such language to stand?

What foreign and dead language is used in the 1586 Act? The original Anglo-Saxon French "perjurie"?

And why would that be inconsistent with the Constitution? I suppose this could be an example of legislation written in legalese.