lying in court

[psychojuice]

At my employment tribunal, the respondent (via one of the managers) admitted that he made up evidence.

This was after he did the following with the same evidence:

1. Said the evidence was real and specifically for me;
2. 6 months later, said he made a mistake with the evidence and it was not for me;
3. 5 months later, said he got confused and so, copied and pasted someone else's feedback, and sent it to me!
4. At the employment tribunal, admitted that he had made up point 3, as well.

Can anyone suggest what I can do? Who do I report it to? What are the likely penalties?

Can I claim for aggravated damages? However, I have yet to get confirmation that I have won. I was told I would be told in the post within 28 days.

Any advice would be gratefully appreciated.

[psychojuice]

Any thoughts?

[psychojuice]

EVA mariefab

[wales01man]

They admitted lying to who ?

[Kati]

Ula ??

[psychojuice]

They admitted to making to evidence to the judge. wales01man

[AnotherLevel]

What was the judge's reaction when they admitted to fabricating evidence? Was this evidence of material nature to their defence?

I believe it is up to the judge to refer the matter to the attorney general or police if he believes that the actions amount to perverting the course of justice or perjury (two separate offences). It's very rare for criminal proceedings to be brought because often it's not in the public interest or the standard of proof is too high.

Can I claim for aggravated damages?

I would imagine that the ET would take this into account if your claim is upheld.

[psychojuice]

What was the judge's reaction when they admitted to fabricating evidence? Was this evidence of material nature to their defence?
I believe it is up to the judge to refer the matter to the attorney general or police if he believes that the actions amount to perverting the course of justice or perjury (two separate offences). It's very rare for criminal proceedings to be brought because often it's not in the public interest or the standard of proof is too high.
I would imagine that the ET would take this into account if your claim is upheld.

After the witness, ummed and arghed a bit, the judge said "did you make up the evidence?" The witnessed tried to pretend she didn't understand the question and so said something about how she was confused and very busy. The judge asked a couple more times and she eventually said "yes I made up the evidence." The judge just carried on.

Was it material of their defense? I believe so.

In terms of public interest- I believe it is very much in the public interest, as the company involved is public sector....

But would the court not need a complaint from me first before taking the matter further? Don't they need a victim? Or is the victim the court, so to speak?

[AnotherLevel]

After the witness, ummed and arghed a bit, the judge said "did you make up the evidence?"

What evidence was the judge specifically referring to? Was it something like a document submitted to the court or something they said when being examined?

People lie in court all the time. It's not uncommon to read in a judgement that a judge believed a particular witness was 'unreliable'. When this happens, the judge will not put much weight to their evidence as a witness (either partly or fully).

If your employer deliberately created or falsified some document after you started your claim and this was material in their defence, then is clearly something very serious and the judge would likely refer this for further investigation.

[psychojuice]

What evidence was the judge specifically referring to? Was it something like a document submitted to the court or something they said when being examined?
People lie in court all the time. It's not uncommon to read in a judgement that a judge believed a particular witness was 'unreliable'. When this happens, the judge will not put much weight to their evidence as a witness (either partly or fully).
If your employer deliberately created or falsified some document after you started your claim and this was material in their defence, then is clearly something very serious and the judge would likely refer this for further investigation.

The judge was referring to emails that the witness said proved that he did not discriminate against me. Basically after an interview, I ask for feedback. The witness provided me a generic pile of s@#t. 2 weeks before the ET, he disclosed these emails, which he says proves that he could not have discriminated against me, because he sent the same generic feedback to white british candidates.

But what if I want to take the matter further? Is it not down to me? Am I not allowed to push the matter forward, so that my public sector employer is made an example of?

[AnotherLevel]

The judge was referring to emails that the witness said proved that he did not discriminate against me. Basically after an interview, I ask for feedback. The witness provided me a generic pile of s@#t. 2 weeks before the ET, he disclosed these emails, which he says proves that he could not have discriminated against me, because he sent the same generic feedback to white british candidates.

This happens in every court case - one side produces something they claim supports their case and the other side disagrees. The judge then takes a view, which in your case appears to be that these emails are not satisfactory evidence that the interviewer did not discriminate against you.

But what if I want to take the matter further? Is it not down to me? Am I not allowed to push the matter forward, so that my public sector employer is made an example of?

If we were talking about your employer producing evidence they fabricated or falsified after your brought your claim, then it would be a very different issue. However in the case, it appears to be nothing more than a difference in opinion over the evidence presented.

[mariefab]

(In one of your other threads, when talking about this feedback guy, you said...)
1. I was given feedback after about 2 weeks, that told me nothing. Just that other candidates had scored higher than me!
(You then asked for clarification and...)
2. He said I had not done well on a couple of the competencies and other had done better than me.
3. In the amended ET3 he states that he got my feedback mixed up with someone else.
4. But in his statement he said that he got confused because he didn't know who my interviewers were and thus decided to write me and other failed candidates the same email!
5. He then followed up by doing the same with the second feedback email.

Employers don't have to give feedback at all.
Go to any jobseeker board to find any number of threads complaining of receiving no feedback.
Unhelpful feedback like, others did better or scored higher in some areas, gets responses like, "Talk about stating the obvious! If no-one did better or scored higher I'd have got the bleeding job!"

Was it made clear by the Judge and the person answering the "did you make up the evidence" question that the "evidence" that they were talking about was the emails that were produced showing that the same generic feedback was sent to white british candidates?
I mean was it proven that these emails were never really sent to the white british candidates and that they were manufactured only for the purpose of deceiving the Tribunal?

[psychojuice]

mariefab AnotherLevel Ok, let me start again. Please ignore all previous posts.

Last year I applied for a job and was unsuccessful. I wrote to the manager in charge, asking for feedback.

He wrote back to me stating that there were 50 candidates and 10 were selected and I was not one of them.

I wrote back asking for better feedback. No reply.

I escalated the matter.

I then got another email from the same manager. The problem is that even that email/ feedback made no sense! He made reference to various skills that I lacked, but just could not have been true. Eventually because the respondent was not playing ball and refusing more disclosure, I took it to acas, then to the ET.

A few months later, the respondent submitted their ET3. In it, it said that I did not get the job because I simply did not score high enough.

A case management hearing took place a few months later. In that hearing the judge ordered the following to be considered:

has the Claimant proved primary facts from which the Tribunal could properly and fairly infer that the difference in treatment was because of the Claimant’s colour or ethnic origin? The Claimant will invite the Tribunal to draw inferences from:

The feedback provided by Miss X which the Claimant’s says was untruthful.


3 months later an updated ET3 stated, that the manager had made a mistake and the feedback was for someone else!

A few months later, the manager provided a witness statement. In it he says that he got confused with which candidate was which and thought it would be easier to send out one email to everyone who asked for feedback. He claimed the email that was produced was for a specific candidate (and was true). But due to that candidates scores and what he said in the feedback, when cross examining him, I challenged that. The judge took over and asked him several times, whether he had made up the feedback. Eventually the manager admitted that the feedback was made up.

Hence, the manager has lied 5 times throughout the entire process- how can he be allowed to get away with that?

Is this any clearer?

[mariefab]

Yes, I understand that the changing and contradictory statements, written and verbal, of this person make it clear that he has lied and/or made up feedback.

What I am trying to establish is which parts of his evidence were lies.
This is because your claim is not lying but race discrimination.
So, unless it was established that his claim to have sent the emails that were disclosed containing the same generic feedback to the white british candidates was a lie, it doesn't help your case.

[AnotherLevel]

Hence, the manager has lied 5 times throughout the entire process- how can he be allowed to get away with that?

As I said earlier, people lie in court all the time and it's often easily picked up during examination (as you've found).

In the Andy Coulson/Tommy Sheridan perjury trial, Lord Burns set out a good definition of perjury (albeit in a Scottish court):

Perjury is the wilful giving of false evidence under oath or affirmation in judicial proceedings. An oath or affirmation binds the witness to tell the truth. If he gives evidence in a criminal trial or in civil proceedings which he knows to be false and which was relevant to the issues in that trial or civil proceedings, he is guilty of perjury.

Not every lie amounts to perjury.

The key here is the relevance of what the manager has said/done in his evidence in relation to your claim of race discrimination.