Abuse of Process (BARRISTER ASSISTANCE WANTED)

[rickierich]

If I lose a case and I can subsequently prove perjury can I then bring a case against the defendant that won the case through committing perjury. The case I would bring would be civil seeking damages for perjury committed. Would that be an abuse of process. If it is not, can you please give me citations showing it not to be.

[Eloise01]

Re: Abuse of Process (BARRISTER ASSISTANCE WANTED)

Perjury is a crime but not a tort. You cannot bring an action to claim damages for perjury. Perjury is a matter for the court or the prosecutor to action. If they do so, and if criminal proceedings for perjury are successful (which they seldom are) then it may be possible to bring a claim for damages on the basis of the consequences of the perjury - so a claim in tort such as defamation. But it would first be necessary for the perjury to be proven in a criminal court - no claim in tort would be successful without this happening first.

[labman]

Re: Abuse of Process (BARRISTER ASSISTANCE WANTED)

As you so clearly want advice from legally qualified people, the advice you've had is excellent. If in any further doubt I'd visit your local Law Centre:

http://www.lawcentres.org.uk/

They should be able to answer your query.

As I say, I believe the advice you have been given is from a qualified lawyer, but most of us here are just amateurs using whatever we've picked up over the years.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Abuse of Process (BARRISTER ASSISTANCE WANTED)

Perjury is a crime but not a tort. You cannot bring an action to claim damages for perjury. Perjury is a matter for the court or the prosecutor to action. If they do so, and if criminal proceedings for perjury are successful (which they seldom are) then it may be possible to bring a claim for damages on the basis of the consequences of the perjury - so a claim in tort such as defamation. But it would first be necessary for the perjury to be proven in a criminal court - no claim in tort would be successful without this happening first.

How about conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

The case of R. v Archer may spring to one's mind, even though the libel case which preceded it may have depended more on whether the jury believed Mary Archer had "fragrance".

[PlanB]

Re: Abuse of Process (BARRISTER ASSISTANCE WANTED)

How about conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

The case of R. v Archer may spring to one's mind, even though the libel case which preceded it may have depended more on whether the jury believed Mary Archer had "fragrance".

Well she would say that wouldn't she :wink:


( I'm showing my age here )

[Eloise01]

Re: Abuse of Process (BARRISTER ASSISTANCE WANTED)

But this is also a criminal offence in common law, so the same would apply - you cannot bring a claim for damages unless or until there was a conviction.

R v. Archer was actually both perjury and perverting the course of justice. Punishable by imprisonment. Not damages.

The reality is that both these offences are very difficult to prosecute and are seldom used. There have indeed been a few successful prosecutions, but they are exceptional. If they were, the Employment Tribunal system alone would warrant a entire court track just to deal with them!

[Guest]

Re: Abuse of Process (BARRISTER ASSISTANCE WANTED)

Well she would say that wouldn't she :wink:

That was the judge.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Abuse of Process (BARRISTER ASSISTANCE WANTED)

That was the judge.

Indeed - link

But wasn't it just a lot of silly, befuddled nonsense spoken by a silly, befuddled judge?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Abuse of Process (BARRISTER ASSISTANCE WANTED)

But this is also a criminal offence in common law, so the same would apply - you cannot bring a claim for damages unless or until there was a conviction.

It still does not seem quite right, if only because a criminal case has to be proven whereas a civil case may be decided on the balance of probabilities. Thus, one may say that Mr X is more likely to be a habitual liar than not but, until it is proved to the criminal standard of proof that he lied in the case of X v Y, he would still retain the damages he had won.

R v. Archer was actually both perjury and perverting the course of justice. Punishable by imprisonment. Not damages.

Nor loss of his peerage, nor loss of his "Rt Hon" as a Privy Councillor, though one might say any sense of honour he might once have had long since went down another privy.

There have indeed been a few successful prosecutions, but they are exceptional. If they were not, the Employment Tribunal system alone would warrant a entire court track just to deal with them!

I fixed that so that it made sense, but would be interested to learn why you consider evidence in employment cases so unreliable.

[Eloise01]

Re: Abuse of Process (BARRISTER ASSISTANCE WANTED)

It still does not seem quite right, if only because a criminal case has to be proven whereas a civil case may be decided on the balance of probabilities.

Because you cannot prosecute either perjury or perverting the course of justice in a civil case - they are criminal offences and must be tried in a criminal court to the standard of proof of a criminal court. A civil court cannot usurp the authority of a criminal court by deciding that someone has committed either because it has no jurisdiction to rule on either. You cannot try a case in whatever court you fancy - it must be in the court that has jurisdiction in the matter of that offence.

I fixed that so that it made sense, but would be interested to learn why you consider evidence in employment cases so unreliable.

Because according to both sides the other side is lying through their teeth, and on more than a few occasions they are quite right. Tribunals are often presented with "two opinions" with little or no substantiating evidence on either side, and expected to determine who is telling the truth and who is not about a specific situation or circumstance. Whilst there are situations where a difference may be ascribed to perspective or subjective views, there are very many occasions when the two stories vary so wildly that someone is lying about it! As in " we had a meeting and this was what ws said..." and "there was no meeting and we never discussed this...". Or, in the one instance I can recall where perjury was assumed by the court, as in "she signed this" and "it isn't even my handwriting!" That was a case in Scotland, and actually nicely evidences the point I made above. The employer clearly and with malice forged douments for the court case, and was found to have done so by the court. But an employment tribunal, albeit a court, does not have jurisdiction over criminal offences so they called the Sherriff and had him arrested, and the case was tried in a criminal court.