Australia's #1 for Law

Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!

QLD Lying in Affidavit - Guilty of Perjury?

Discussion in 'Criminal Law Forum' started by Dwayne Harry, 9 December 2016.

  1. Dwayne Harry

    Dwayne Harry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    13 November 2015
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    14
    If a person deliberately, with full knowledge, lies in an affidavit that is used in Court Proceedings, are they then guilty of Perjury?
     
    Timnuts likes this.
  2. Gorodetsky

    Gorodetsky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21 February 2016
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    26
    Hi Dwayne,

    No. The magistrate/judge/jury see that they have lied and treat all their evidence as being unreliable.

    To be found guilty, the police need to charge them, then they either plead guilty or are found guilty after a hearing.

    Police hardly ever charge anyone with perjury. And in this climate, a DV "victim" getting charged for perjury is pretty freaking unlikely.

    Try for costs...

    Regards
     
    Timnuts likes this.
  3. Timnuts

    Timnuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    7 April 2016
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    4
    My question on Top of that question is: what then is the crimal charge and penalties for their actions?
     
    Dwayne Harry likes this.
  4. Rod

    Rod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 May 2014
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    418
    The crime is called perjury.

    2 different penalties can apply in Qld - up to 14 years gaol, or up to life if the perjury is in relation to a crime with a punishment of life.

    There is a significant difference though between using evidence to prove or disprove a fact in court and making a false report to police.

    In the first instance the evidence may not be accepted as proving a fact but that is not the same as saying as saying it is deliberately false.

    Personally I don't like the premise of granting AVOs DVOs unless there is independent evidence backing up the allegations being made. It is too easy at the moment to get an AVO just on the lying word of an unreasonable unreliable pissed off person. And the consequences of breaching an AVO are too harsh for some low level offending, especially when trapped into it by the scheming lying person who is out to get you using the legal system for their own base personal satisfaction.

    The law needs something like a 'keep away and no contact' order to separate people but that doesn't have the same stigma and effect of an AVO DVO and can be granted without needing to prove violence or apprehension. This can change to an AVO DVO if the order is broken rather the next step being gaol or fines. It can be treated like traffic infringements are without needing a proper court and it puts the offending party on notice the aggrieved party wants space.

    Rules can easily be put in place such as if the aggrieved party initiates contact the 'keep away no contact order' is wiped away like it never existed. The type of contact can vary the infringement from say one point for a text msg to 12 points for knocking on the door at midnight.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Timnuts likes this.
  5. Timnuts

    Timnuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    7 April 2016
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    4
    Is this then the same for SA?
     
  6. Iamthelaw

    Iamthelaw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    13 September 2016
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    64
    The original poster has put forward a scenario about making a false statement in an affidavit that is used in court proceedings. The relevant offence is perjury. The exact definition may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but generally speaking: A person who in, or in connection with any judicial proceeding makes a false statement on oath or affirmation concerning any matter which is material to the proceeding whilst knowing that statement to be false or believing it to not be true.

    Filing a sworn affidavit that is then used in court (judicial proceeding) that is false definitely is perjury. An easy example is: Filing an affidavit saying that your weekly income is $2000, when it is in fact, $3000. It ought to be noted though that this isn't all that needs to be proven.

    Incorrect - The DPP or AG can also bring charge for perjury.

    Where did you source this information from? Perjury, along with a similarly related offence of pervert the course of justice is utilized quite often.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Timnuts likes this.
  7. Gorodetsky

    Gorodetsky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21 February 2016
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    26
    The DPP and the AG...cool, I didn't know...I suspect poor Dwayne has even less chance with them than the police though.

    My sources? Anecdotal. Which I completely agree is far from beyond reasonable doubt. If you feel it's not true you ought to recommend Dwayne take his evidence to the police and ask them to charge this person with perjury.

    I'm not a solicitor, so I'm always happy for better informed posters to correct my opinion and educate myself.

    Regards
     
    Timnuts likes this.
  8. Rod

    Rod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 May 2014
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    418
    Private prosecutions can also be undertaken.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Timnuts likes this.
  9. Iamthelaw

    Iamthelaw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    13 September 2016
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    64
    Not in the case of indictable offences.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Timnuts likes this.
  10. Rod

    Rod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 May 2014
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    418
    Part 5, Div 2 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) allows private prosecutions for indictable offences that can be heard summarily.

    s 686 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) also allows private prosecutions for indictable offences with the leave of the Qld Supreme Court.

    Though I am not familiar with the detail of these provisions.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Timnuts likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...
gt;