Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Perjury

Options
  • 23-01-2019 9:08pm
    #1
    Johnson_76
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭


    Is this considered a contempt of court in Irish courts. Or is there not a specific charge of perjury.

    For instance if someone is found to be lying under oath to a judge, is it correct for them to be charged with contempt of court.

    Thanks


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Perjury is a specific offence under statute and common law (known as the offence of "perjury in judicial proceedings" under CL).

    It would be contempt in facie curiae.

    Such charges are few and far between, and successful prosecutions even less so, 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 the testimony made on oath or another witness with additional substantial corroborative evidence.

    That aside there is an even more rare common law offence of subornation of perjury here that very few may be aware of.


  • Options
    #3
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    I knew a man who got jail for perjury/subornation. He was in an accident in Dublin and the other side made a claim against him. He got a friend of his to go to court and say he saw the incident. The other side were able to establish that his friend was in Cork on the day in question and couldn't have seen the incident. Both got jail.


  • Options
    #4
    Johnson_76
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭Johnson_76


    GM228 wrote: »
    Perjury is a specific offence under statute and common law (known as the offence of "perjury in judicial proceedings" under CL).

    It would be contempt in facie curiae.

    Such charges are few and far between, and successful prosecutions even less so, 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 the testimony made on oath or another witness with additional substantial corroborative evidence.

    That aside there is an even more rare common law offence of subornation of perjury here that very few may be aware of.


    I see thank you. In this example the person was found guilty of contempt of court for untruthfulness. I would like to discuss is this a normal way of dealing with it. Is contempt of court a criminal offence


  • Options
    #5
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Johnson_76 wrote: »
    I see thank you. In this example the person was found guilty of contempt of court for untruthfulness. I would like to discuss is this a normal way of dealing with it. Is contempt of court a criminal offence

    Google might be your friend it was being considered in 2017


  • Options
    #6
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Johnson_76 wrote: »
    I see thank you. In this example the person was found guilty of contempt of court for untruthfulness. I would like to discuss is this a normal way of dealing with it. Is contempt of court a criminal offence

    There are four forms of contempt of court:

    Contempt in facie curiae (disruptive behaviour, lieing etc), scandalising the court (untrue allegations about a court or the judiciary), sub judice contempt (publishing prejudicial material about that would interfere with the administration of justice) and failure to comply with a court order.

    The first three are criminal, the last is civil but is unique in that you can still be sent to jail for civil contempt until you purge your contempt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    coylemj
    Registered Users Posts: 25,387 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    Johnson_76 wrote: »
    I see thank you. In this example the person was found guilty of contempt of court for untruthfulness. I would like to discuss is this a normal way of dealing with it.

    No it's not. Judges often accuse one or more witnesses in a specific case of telling blatant lies in the witness box but they can't do much about it, beyond discounting their evidence and finding for the other side in the case of civil claims like traffic accidents.

    One one day in a District Court hearing traffic summons, the judge had a series of cases relating to speeding. All bar one or two of the defendants got into the witness box and swore on oath that they never received the fixed penalty notice which (the Gardai claimed) were sent to them in the post so the cases against them were dismissed. The judge said there was a 'whiff of perjury' about his courtroom i.e. he didn't believe any of them. But there was nothing he could do about it.

    In the case you are discussing, about someone pulled up for 'untruthfullness' in court, it's more likely that what was said did not relate directly to 'evidence' in a case but happened while the judge was dealing with a procedural matter like a defendant applying for legal aid or someone applying to be admitted as a bailsman. I suspect that the individual was caught telling a barefaced lie and the judge decided to come down on him with the contempt finding.


  • Options
    #8
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    coylemj wrote: »
    No it's not. Judges often accuse one or more witnesses in a specific case of telling blatant lies in the witness box but they can't do much about it, beyond discounting their evidence and finding for the other side in the case of civil claims like traffic accidents.

    One one day in a District Court hearing traffic summons, the judge had a series of cases relating to speeding. All bar one or two of the defendants got into the witness box and swore on oath that they never received the fixed penalty notice which (the Gardai claimed) were sent to them in the post so the cases against them were dismissed. The judge said there was a 'whiff of perjury' about his courtroom i.e. he didn't believe any of them. But there was nothing he could do about it.

    In the case you are discussing, about someone pulled up for 'untruthfullness' in court, it's more likely that what was said did not relate directly to 'evidence' in a case but happened while the judge was dealing with a procedural matter like a defendant applying for legal aid or someone applying to be admitted as a bailsman. I suspect that the individual was caught telling a barefaced lie and the judge decided to come down on him with the contempt finding.

    +1, if a judge wants to take further the issue if criminal contempt they request the matter be brought to the DPP first who decide weather or not to prosecute.


  • Options
    #9
    Duffryman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 547 ✭✭✭Duffryman


    coylemj wrote: »
    One one day in a District Court hearing traffic summons, the judge had a series of cases relating to speeding. All bar one or two of the defendants got into the witness box and swore on oath that they never received the fixed penalty notice which (the Gardai claimed) were sent to them in the post so the cases against them were dismissed. The judge said there was a 'whiff of perjury' about his courtroom i.e. he didn't believe any of them. But there was nothing he could do about it.

    I used to cover District Court sittings for a local newspaper and I saw this happen myself nearly every time. Always amazed me how much post must go astray....


  • Options
    #10
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Duffryman wrote: »
    Always amazed me how much post must go astray....
    Wasn't it discovered that notices weren't even being posted in the first place in some place a few years back?


  • Options
    #11
    Duffryman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 547 ✭✭✭Duffryman


    You’re right, it was discovered some time ago that some number of the notices weren’t actually sent out (I can’t find details online with a just a quick search – might look again later on).

    But what I used to see was ridiculous. There’d be days when 50% of more of people facing a speeding summons would just say they never got the notice, and the case would be struck out.

    There’d be days too when the first few would say ‘guilty’ and make some excuse about why they hadn’t paid the fixed charge, but then as soon as somebody else claimed ‘I never got it’ and had their case struck out, a huge number of the subsequent defendants would start saying the same thing.

    There’s no way there wasn’t at least some of them telling porkies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Duffryman wrote: »

    There’s no way there wasn’t at least some of them telling porkies.

    Which of them were telling porkies?


Advertisement