PERJURY ACT 1911

1 Perjury.

(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding willfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . F1 for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.

(2) The expression “judicial proceeding” includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and examine evidence on oath.

(3 Where a statement made for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is not made before the tribunal itself, but is made on oath before a person authorised by law to administer an oath to the person who makes the statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, it shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as having been made in a judicial proceeding.

(4) A statement made by a person lawfully sworn in England for the purposes of a judicial proceeding—

(a) in another part of His Majesty’s dominions; or

(b) in a British tribunal lawfully constituted in any place by sea or land outside His Majesty’s dominions; or

(c) in a tribunal of any foreign state,

shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as a statement made in a judicial proceeding in England.

(5) Where, for the purposes of a judicial proceeding in England, a person is lawfully sworn under the authority of an Act of Parliament—

(a) in any other part of His Majesty’s dominions; or

(b) before a British tribunal or a British officer in a foreign country, or within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England;

a statement made by such person so sworn as aforesaid (unless the Act of Parliament under which it was made otherwise specifically provides) shall be treated for the purposes of this section as having been made in the judicial proceeding in England for the purposes whereof it was made.

(6) The question whether a statement on which perjury is assigned was material is a question of law to be determined by the court of trial.

WHAT IS PERJURY

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding. Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty. Instead, criminal culpability attaches only at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) that are material to the outcome of the proceeding. For example, it is not perjury to lie about one's age except if age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.

Perjury is considered a serious offense, as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years. The California Penal Code allows for perjury to be a capital offense in cases causing wrongful execution. Perjury causing the wrongful execution of another is normally punishable by death in countries that retain the death penalty. Perjury is considered a felony in most U.S. states as well as most Australian states. In Queensland, under Section 124 of the Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899, perjury is punishable by up to life in prison if it is committed to procure an innocent person for a crime that is punishable by life in prison. However, prosecutions for perjury are rare. In some countries such as France and Italy, suspects cannot be heard under oath or affirmation and so cannot commit perjury, regardless of what they say during their trial.

The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official. An example is the US income tax return, which, by law, must be signed as true and correct under penalty of perjury (see 26 U.S.C. § 6065). Federal tax law provides criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for violation of the tax return perjury statute. See: 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)

Statements that entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act and to have actually committed the act (actus reus). Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters that are immaterial to the legal proceeding.

In the United States, Kenya, and Scotland, subornation of perjury, which is attempting to induce another person to commit perjury, is itself a crime.

The words omitted from section 1(1) were repealed by section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948.

A person guilty of an offence under section 11(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 may be proceeded against and punished in England and Wales as for an offence under section 1(1).

Section 1(4) has effect in relation to proceedings in the Court of Justice of the European Communities as it has effect in relation to a judicial proceeding in a tribunal of a foreign state.

Section 1(4) applies in relation to proceedings before a relevant convention court under the European Patent Convention as it applies to a judicial proceeding in a tribunal of a foreign state.

A statement made on oath by a witness outside the United Kingdom and given in evidence through a live television link by virtue of section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 must be treated for the purposes of section 1 as having been made in the proceedings in which it is given in evidence.

Section 1 applies in relation to a person acting as an intermediary as it applies in relation to a person lawfully sworn as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding; and for this purpose, where a person acts as an intermediary in any proceeding which is not a judicial proceeding for the purposes of section 1, that proceeding must be taken to be part of the judicial proceeding in which the witness’s evidence is given.

Where any statement made by a person on oath in any proceeding which is not a judicial proceeding for the purposes of section 1 is received in evidence in pursuance of a special measures direction, that proceeding must be taken for the purposes of section 1 to be part of the judicial proceeding in which the statement is so received in evidence.

Judicial proceeding

The definition in section 1(2) is not "comprehensive".

The book "Archbold" said that it appears to be immaterial whether the court, before which the statement is made, has jurisdiction in the particular cause in which the statement is made, because there is no express requirement in the Act that the court be one of "competent jurisdiction" and because the definition in section 1(2) does not appear to require this by implication either.

Actus reus

The actus reus of perjury might be considered to be the making of a statement, whether true or false, on oath in a judicial proceeding, where the person knows the statement to be false or believes it to be false.

Perjury is a conduct crime.

Mode of trial

Perjury is triable only on indictment.

Sentence

A person convicted of perjury is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine, or to both.

The following cases are relevant:

R v Hall (1982) 4 Cr App R (S) 153
R v Knight, 6 Cr App R (S) 31, [1984] Crim LR 304, CA
R v Healey (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 297
R v Dunlop [2001] 2 Cr App R (S) 27
R v Archer [2002] EWCA Crim 1996, [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 86
R v Adams [2004] 2 Cr App R (S) 15
R v Cunningham [2007] 2 Cr App R (S) 61

NCSC ROYAL OPENING - Her Majesty The Queen opened the NCSC on the 17th of February 2017. There are several agencies in the UK that are supposed to tackle fraud, cyber crime, drugs, sex trafficking and money laundering, but when you ask any one of them to take a look at corruption in Wealden-land, they don't appear too anxious to open a case file. It's more a case of pass the buck .... and keep passing it ... until the complainant fades away. Sorry to have to report this to you Your Majesty, but it is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth - so help me God.

WHERE IS THE FINANCIAL GAIN

What is the motive for Wealden's officers and/or members to help in the preparation of fraudulent statements for any enforcement action, appeal or public enquiry - and then to lie on oath?

The incentive is to gain employment, hence, obtain a wage or salary on the basis of keeping the truth hidden from the public. Not only that, but typically on retirement there will be an enhanced pension for keeping quiet about the corruption that you (officers and members) have been party to.

That is one of the reasons that council officers such as David Phillips are allowed to remain in employment in another capacity in order to qualify for an enhanced retirement package.

Make no mistake, this kind of bribery to remain silent qualifies as proceeds of crime against which all the usual remedies apply such as seizure of property and cash in the officer or members bank accounts.

These are some of the police chiefs in the United Kingdom who will not prosecute officer and/or members of any Council for wrong doing. Why? The only reason we can think of is that they might be implicated.

Victorio Patrick Scarpa, Christine Nuttall, David Phillips & Charles (Charlie) Lant

Kelvin Williams, J. Douglas Moss and Ian M. Kay

Vicarage Lane, Hailsham, East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322

WHY NOT EMAIL A COUNCILOR TO HAVE YOUR SAY ABOUT ANY PERJURY YOU IDENTIFY?

cllr.susan.stedman@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.stuart.towner@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.stephen.shing@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.ron.cussons@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.raymond.cade@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.nigel.mckeeman@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.lin.clark@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.john.blake@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.jan.dunk@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.dick.angel@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.dianne.dear@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.david.white@wealden.gov.uk
daniel.shing@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.chris.hardy@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.chriss.triandafyllou@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.charles.peck@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.barry.marlowe@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.barby.dashwood-morris@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.ann.newton@wealden.gov.uk

Dick Angel - Jo Bentley - John Blake - Bob Bowdler - Don Broadbent - Norman Buck - Raymond Cade - John Carvey - Lin Clark
Nicholas Collinson - Nigel Coltman - Ronald Cussons - Barby Dashwood-Morris - Dianne Dear - Phil Dixon - Pam Doodes

  Claire Dowling - Jan Dunk - Louise Eastwood - Philip Ede - Helen Firth - Toby Illingworth - Jonica Fox - Roy Galley - Richard Grocock - Chris Hardy

Steve Harms - Jim Hollins - Peter Holloway - Johanna Howell - Stephen Isted - David Larkin - Andy Long - Michael Lunn

Barry Marlowe - Nigel McKeeman - Huw Merriman - Rowena Moore - Kay Moss - Douglas Murray - Ann Newton - Ken Ogden

Amanda O'Rawe - Charles R Peck - Diane Phillips - Mark Pinkney - Major Antony Quin RM - Ronald Reed - Dr. Brian Redman

Carol Reynolds - Greg Rose - Peter Roundell - William Rutherford - Daniel Shing - Oi Lin Shing - Raymond Shing - Stephen Shing

Robert Standley - Susan Stedman - Bill Tooley - Jeanette Towey - Stuart Towner - Chriss Triandafyllou - Peter Waldock

Neil Waller - David Watts - Mark Weaver -Graham Wells - David White - John Wilton

LINKS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury_Act_1911

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/contents

Abbott Trevor - Alcock Charmain - Ditto - Arnold Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh Lesley - Black Julian -Boakes Beverley

Paul Barker - Brigginshaw Marina - Brown Ashley - Coffey Patrick - Douglas Sheelagh - Flemming Mike - Goodwin Daniel

Henham J - Holness Derek - Hoy Thomas - Johnson Geoff - Kay Ian - Kay I. M. - Lant Charles - Mercer Richard - Mileman Niall

Moon Craig - Moss Douglas, J. -  Nuttall Christine - Phillips David - Scarpa Victorio - Scott Trevor - Kevin Stewart

Wakeford M. - Whibley David - White, George - White Steve - Williams Kelvin