Perjury (crime against state) Flashcards
Singh v HMA 2005
S, the owner of a basement flat in which a fire occurred, resulting in the death of two of the tenants, appealed against his conviction of perjury and the subsequent imposition of 30 months’ imprisonment after he lied when giving evidence at a fatal accident inquiry that there had been a working smoke detector in the hallway of the flat. S submitted that (1) the evidence given by him at the inquiry was rendered incompetent by the failure of the presiding sheriff to warn him that he could decline to answer on the ground that it could be self incriminatory, which was required in terms of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 s.5(2) , and thus it could not in law found a charge of perjury; (2) the sheriff had erred in both repelling an objection to the leading of the whole transcript of the inquiry proceedings which included evidence about a smoke detector in the flat’s kitchen which was prejudicial to him, and in directing the jury that such evidence could be taken into account when it was irrelevant to the determination of the perjury charge; (3) a custodial sentence was inappropriate and excessive given the nature of the offence and his personal circumstances.
Held, dismissing the appeal,
Simpson v Tudhope 1988
(police officer)the accused that said that they were with the friend at the relevant time, but on the question where they were. Did not remember, locus considered to be material fact in the case as it established on alibi for the accused. Committed perjury
HMA v Cairns 1967
said that he stabbed the victim under oath. Based on this the accused was aquitted. However subsequently it was determined that the accused has in fact lied - evidence. Guilty
HMA v Smith 1934
Held , by the Lord Justice-Clerk, that an indictment charging the accused with perjury committed while giving evidence, which, although not objected to, was incompetent and should not have been admitted, was an irrelevant indictment.
Binnie v HMA 2002
subornation perjury; B was convicted of conspiracy to rob and assault and robbery, acting along with two others (M and D), and attempted subornation of perjury in respect of D. He appealed against conviction, inter alia, on the grounds of new exculpatory evidence in terms of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 s.106(3)(a). M and D had previously pled guilty and gave evidence against him. D’s evidence was accepted to be essential. B claimed that D had since admitted that his evidence against B was untrue and had been precognosced to that effect, giving an explanation why he had given the evidence he did. D then refused to sign an affidavit based on the precognition, with no explanation. B tendered affidavits from his solicitor speaking to D’s change of evidence, from M that B was not the third man who assisted M and D, and from a prisoner that D had admitted to him that he lied at the trial in incriminating B.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that information in the form of a precognition of a witness was not “evidence” for the purpose of s.106(3)(a), being merely the precognoscer’s account of what was said by the witness, and the consequence of the refusal to sign the affidavit, whatever the reasons, was that its contents could not be accepted as evidence under s.106.
Angus v HMA 1935
remember subornation of perjury
