Lying under Oath

Soups123 · 11-07-2012 10:47PM #1

Hi

Just seeking an opinion in the following situation, if in a family court one of the 2 parties confirms under oath that they have no assets and that any claim by the other party thst they own a property in Turkey is not true(and they also confirm this in there affidavit of means), yet the other party provides factual evidence (current registry deeds) proving ownership?
How would the court handle a situation like this in divorce proceedings? And how does it impact any other statements they make in place of other claims they can't factually back up?

Thanks in advance

Victor · 11-07-2012 11:27PM

Being shown to not be telling the truth would go against the reliability of the witness. This would make their other claims unreliable and potentially harm their case. It would be difficult to say exactly what the consequences are.

Potentially, perjury could mean a prison sentence, but I'm not sure if a judge in a family law case would necessarily follow that line.

Soups123 · 11-07-2012 11:38PM

Thanks Victor

Is the judge not required to take some action if it is clear they have lied to financially gain at the expense of their spouse? If even not jail a fine or something? or can he simply choose no action

happyhappy · 11-07-2012 11:49PM

Soups123 wrote: »

Hi

Just seeking an opinion in the following situation, if in a family court one of the 2 parties confirms under oath that they have no assets and that any claim by the other party thst they own a property in Turkey is not true(and they also confirm this in there affidavit of means), yet the other party provides factual evidence (current registry deeds) proving ownership?
How would the court handle a situation like this in divorce proceedings? And how does it impact any other statements they make in place of other claims they can't factually back up?

Thanks in advance

Check the civil liability and courts act 2004, there are specific offences contained there but I am not sure if they can relate to family law matters, or if they are just for personal injury cases etc.

Victor · 11-07-2012 11:51PM

People are loathe to come between spouses, even if they are divorcing. I don't know if that applies to judges or not.

And I might bow out at this point.

ResearchWill · 12-07-2012 12:22AM

I was told once that the Purjury Act 1728, was not repealed in Ireland by the Purjury Act 1911. The 1728 Act allowed for 7 years hard labour or 7 years transportation. I have looked but can not find if that Act was repealed in Ireland. Would be interested if anyone knows if it has been repealed.

johnnyskeleton · 12-07-2012 06:35PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

I was told once that the Purjury Act 1728, was not repealed in Ireland by the Purjury Act 1911. The 1728 Act allowed for 7 years hard labour or 7 years transportation. I have looked but can not find if that Act was repealed in Ireland. Would be interested if anyone knows if it has been repealed.

The Perjury Act, 1929 ((3 Geo. 2) C. 4) is still on the books I believe. Is that the one you mean?

ResearchWill · 12-07-2012 07:34PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The Perjury Act, 1929 ((3 Geo. 2) C. 4) is still on the books I believe. Is that the one you mean?

No I meant 1729, that act was repealed by the 1911 Act but not in Ireland, I can't find any reference to a Perjury Act 1929, can you link to it. Also a 1929 UK Act would have no application in Ireland.

Just found that the 1729 Act was retained http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/isbc/pui1729.html

So it's still good law, tell a lie and it's 7 years in Australia, sounds good to me.

Lying under Oath

Comments