Criminal Justice (Perjury and Related Offences) Act 2021

Red Hare

The Oirechtas website states that this was signed into law on 21st june last. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2021/act/13/enacted/en/html

Does anyone know when it comes into force? section 17 (5)states " This Act comes into operation on such day or days as the Minister for Justice may by order appoint, either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision, and different days may be so fixed for different purposes and different provisions." I cannot find any Ministerial order commenting this act?

Also, does anyone know if this Act applies to perjury in employment laws or judicial reviews - if someone commits perjury on a sworn affidavit?

Peregrinus

A commencement order will be noted on the irishstatutebook.ie page for the Act, under the "Commencements, amendments, SIs made under the Act" tab. So far none is noted, which means none has been made.

The offence of perjury is defined in s. 2, under which a person who "in or for the purpose of a judicial or other proceeding, gives a statement material in the proceeding . . . on affidavit . . . that is false, and he or she knows to be false" commits the offence of perjury.

So, yeah, if you knowingly make a false affidavit on a material point in employment tribunal or judicial review proceedings, that will be perjury under s.2 (once the Act is in force).

The Act is not retrospective. So if you make the false affidavit today and the Act is brought into force tomorrow, you won't have committed the offence of perjury under s. 2 (but you will probably have committed some other offence).

Red Hare

Thank you Peregrinus for that!

The Minister for Justice should not delay any further in commencing this Act.

Peregrinus

Providing for an Act to be commenced by ministerial order is pretty standard.

The idea is to create a space between the time when they definitely know for absolute certain what the new Act states (which is when the Oireachtas passes it) and the time it actually comes into operation. That space will be as long as it needs to be for the various agencies who will be involved in operating and administering the new law to get ready to do so. There may be policies to be rewritten, practice manuals and operating statements to be updated, new procedures and processes to be developed and people trained in them, stakeholder groups to be informed and prepared for the changes, etc, etc. Obviously, the amount of this that has to be done in relation to any new law will vary depending on what the new law says, how different it is from the old law, how many different agencies or stakeholder groups are affected, yadda, yadda, yadda. It also depends on political priorities; are we going to spend time, attention and money on preparing for the implementation of this new law, or on getting more guards on the beat/hospital beds/fixing the roads/appointing more special advisers?

Which is a long-winded way of saying; it's impossible to predict how long will elapse between an Act being enacted, and it being brought into operation. But, unless the new law has been enacted in response to a strong political imperative for urgent action, it usually takes longer than, looking at it from outside, you would expect it to need. So don't hold your breath.

Robbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117698494#Comment_117698494

The Act was commenced on July 28th by SI 378/2021.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117700749#Comment_117700749

How did you find that out? It's still not noted on the irishstatutebook page for the Act.

Victor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117702832#Comment_117702832

ISB often has a time lag. Departmental websites and Iris Oifigiúil will publish first.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117702872#Comment_117702872

That's a bit slack.

SI 378/2021 is in fact noted on irishstatutebook.ie; just not on the web page for the Act it commences, which is where people are most likely to look for it, and where they will certainly expect it to be.

The whole point of having legislation online is that it can be completely up to date, which hard copy legislation databases really can't be.

Robbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117702832#Comment_117702832

Spotted a [url=https://irishlegal.com/article/act-to-make-prosecution-of-perjury-easier-now-in-force]news article[/url] on it.

Fully agree with you that not having things updated on the same day on Irish Statute Book is an absolute pain the neck. I wouldn't have too much faith in Iris Oifigiúil either.

Victor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117704093#Comment_117704093

Am I correct in thinking that nothing comes into force until it is published in Iris Oifigiúil.

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117704774#Comment_117704774

It's different for an Act or SI, the Statutory Instruments Act 1947 S3 states a SI is not invalid if it has not been published.

Also in relation to bye-laws for example failure to published does not invalidate them under the Local Government Act 2001 S202 (they are already covered under the 1947 Act though as they are SIs anyway).

Red Hare

Thank you all for your posts.

Imagine, I have never seen or heard of the Iris Oifigiúil website before now!

Perjury was committed in June last ( before this act came into being) in an affidavit by a party to a case that is not going to be heard until next year. In my replying affidavit I intend to show the documents which are relevant to the case I am make, but also are proof of perjury.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no consequences for perjury before this new Act came into force.

🙃

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117706549#Comment_117706549

It's the official published journal of the state rather than a simple website, the website only mimics part of the printed journal, laws, government announcements etc have been published this way in the state since at least the 17th Century and there is a Constitutional requirement to continue to do so for Acts of the Oireachtas, and of course a statutory requirement to continue to do so for SIs.

Perjury has been an offence under common law and statute long before this new Act, some brief threads previously:-https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/109898893#

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2057949213/perjury#

Red Hare

Thanks GM228 for the links to those discussions, they contain good info and points made about Perjury/ contempt of Court.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117706549#Comment_117706549

Just FYI - It's almost impossible to show someone is lying on affidavit by filing another affidavit. As a general rule courts do not resolve issues of fact between two sets of affidavits. They can only do that through cross-examination of the person who swore the offending affidavit. At best the court can conclude that one affidavit is nothing more than a mere assertion of fact while the other is supported by strong corroborating evidence. But those circumstances are, on the whole, quite rare. Where there is a conflict of fact the court cannot resolve it on affidavit.

Also, it is entirely possible for two people to be telling the truth and for only one of them to be right. Things can be misinterpreted, misunderstood and through the passage of time misremembered. Quite often people's memories can change based on the retelling of the story itself. A detail creeps in that wasn't part of the actual event but becomes a part of the story in the person's mind and, thus, they "remember" the event as including that detail. It's entirely innocent, and simply a vagary of how our minds work.

That's why the Act requires not only that the statement be false, but that the person making it knew it was false. In the absence of that second element - actual knowledge - there is no offence. And that is a fairly high burden to overcome.

GM228

+1 to what Kayroo has said, perjury has always been a very difficult offence to prove under either common law or statute which is why you would do well to fill one hand with the amount of successful prosecutions you can find over the last 435 years, you may find one or two from the 18th or 19th century where the accused was disabled to be sworn, but that's about it (there may be more historical ones pre 18th century but there are no records to confirm), the new Act is unlikely to have any significant change I would think.

Red Hare

Thank you all for the comments and the info.

The judge is probably not interested in perjury, but the documents I will be exhibiting contain a high degree of proof that a person knew that they were telling falsehoods. I am interested in supporting my case - not in proving perjury, but by default in supporting the case i make, I will be showing proof to the effect that perjury has occurred - in other words that the person knew that they were stating falsehood. I don't intend to accuse anyone of perjury or to use that word because I have my own case to prove. Perjury is a side-issue at present .

If I am successful in my case, I would then afterwards hope to show the proof of perjury to get a prosecution - this is because the perjury is about a very serious matter that affects the welfare of other people.

Peregrinus

This is a wise policy. What matters for the purposes of the civil proceedings is whether the other guy's affidavit is true or false, correct or incorrect. It rarely matter whether his affidavit is honest or dishonest. So focus on establishing by evidence and coherence and credibility that your version of events is true and correct and his is not. Going to the question of whether he is honest or dishonest is at best irrelevant; at worst can make it looking like you are pursuing a vendetta, or are focussed on revenge. And if you create that impression, you make your own evidence look a bit less reliable.

Red Hare

Thanks Peregrinus you're a star ⭐️- I will stick to correct v incorrect, true v false. Honest V dishonest is for another time . I will try to box clever and forget about any side show !