David J wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:37:28 +0100, Hopeless wrote:

totallystressed wrote:
Help!

I am shortly facing court as a witness for the prosecution. The
defendant is apparently going to be representing himself and so
will be asking the cross-examination questions.

The offences are harassment and threats to kill.

Has anyone got any tips to help me? All help is much appreciated.

Obvious answer is to simply tell the truth....but that might not be
wise :-)

In my experience (from public galleries) is that courts are frequently
a Theatre of Lies. The defendant lies, the police (frequently) lie.
The procecution lawyers lie. All in the hope of confusing/bamboozling
the jury or the magistate.

Seldom does anyone get charged with perjury after these antics. Why?

Because you're generally mistaken.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:07:41 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

David J wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:37:28 +0100, Hopeless wrote:

totallystressed wrote:
Help!

I am shortly facing court as a witness for the prosecution. The
defendant is apparently going to be representing himself and so
will be asking the cross-examination questions.

The offences are harassment and threats to kill.

Has anyone got any tips to help me? All help is much appreciated.

Obvious answer is to simply tell the truth....but that might not be
wise :-)

In my experience (from public galleries) is that courts are frequently
a Theatre of Lies. The defendant lies, the police (frequently) lie.
The procecution lawyers lie. All in the hope of confusing/bamboozling
the jury or the magistate.

Seldom does anyone get charged with perjury after these antics. Why?

Because you're generally mistaken.

Well, take the simple case of a burglar, who in court offers an alibi
as his defense. The prosecution prove without any doubt that this
alibi is bogus, and he is duly convicted.

So he is now guilty of two crimes: burglary and perjury, surely..?

David J wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:07:41 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

David J wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:37:28 +0100, Hopeless wrote:

totallystressed wrote:
Help!

I am shortly facing court as a witness for the prosecution. The
defendant is apparently going to be representing himself and so
will be asking the cross-examination questions.

The offences are harassment and threats to kill.

Has anyone got any tips to help me? All help is much appreciated.
Obvious answer is to simply tell the truth....but that might not be
wise :-)
In my experience (from public galleries) is that courts are frequently
a Theatre of Lies. The defendant lies, the police (frequently) lie.
The procecution lawyers lie. All in the hope of confusing/bamboozling
the jury or the magistate.

Seldom does anyone get charged with perjury after these antics. Why?
Because you're generally mistaken.

Well, take the simple case of a burglar, who in court offers an alibi
as his defense. The prosecution prove without any doubt that this
alibi is bogus, and he is duly convicted.

So he is now guilty of two crimes: burglary and perjury, surely..?


By that reckoning everyone who pleads not guilty and is found guilty
commits perjury?

Old Boyz Network wrote:
David J wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:07:41 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

David J wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:37:28 +0100, Hopeless
wrote:
totallystressed wrote:
Help!

I am shortly facing court as a witness for the prosecution. The
defendant is apparently going to be representing himself and so
will be asking the cross-examination questions.

The offences are harassment and threats to kill.

Has anyone got any tips to help me? All help is much
appreciated.
Obvious answer is to simply tell the truth....but that might not
be wise :-)
In my experience (from public galleries) is that courts are
frequently a Theatre of Lies. The defendant lies, the police
(frequently) lie. The procecution lawyers lie. All in the hope of
confusing/bamboozling the jury or the magistate.

Seldom does anyone get charged with perjury after these antics. Why?
Because you're generally mistaken.

Well, take the simple case of a burglar, who in court offers an alibi
as his defense. The prosecution prove without any doubt that this
alibi is bogus, and he is duly convicted.

So he is now guilty of two crimes: burglary and perjury, surely..?


By that reckoning everyone who pleads not guilty and is found guilty
commits perjury?

Arguably, but the Appeal Courts have consistently been against the
prosecution having a "second bite of the cherry" if the original prosecution
fails. Since the abolition of the double jeopardy rule in limited
circumstances, very few acquittals have been overturned and the only one
that springs to mind is R v Dunlop, and that turned on new evidence turning
up in any case.

As for convicted defendants who lie and fail to achieve acquittal, well they
lose their discount for pleading guilty anyway, and the thinking seems to be
that it's a waste of time and public funds pursuing a charge of perjury. The
prosecution wouldl have to prove BRD that the defendant was lying rather
than mistaken. Not always easy.

Some history of this he http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2000/issue5/james5.html

David J wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:07:41 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

In my experience (from public galleries) is that courts are
frequently a Theatre of Lies. The defendant lies, the police
(frequently) lie. The procecution lawyers lie. All in the hope of
confusing/bamboozling the jury or the magistate.

Seldom does anyone get charged with perjury after these antics.
Why?

Because you're generally mistaken.

Well, take the simple case of a burglar, who in court offers an alibi
as his defense. The prosecution prove without any doubt that this
alibi is bogus, and he is duly convicted.

So he is now guilty of two crimes: burglary and perjury, surely..?

It's possible. But you get a more severe penalty if you plead not guilty
than if you admit everything up front, so I guess it's regarded as a quid
pro quo.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:57:00 +0100, David J
wrote:

Well, take the simple case of a burglar, who in court offers an alibi
as his defense. The prosecution prove without any doubt that this
alibi is bogus, and he is duly convicted.

So he is now guilty of two crimes: burglary and perjury, surely..?

In that case yes. But the view is usually taken that punishment for
the crime charged is sufficient, unless the lie was out of all
proportion to the seriousness of the offence, or was made in an
attempt to put the guilt for the crime onto an innocent person.

Similar to the crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Otherwise you could punish a person many times for a single crime
unless s/he makes no attempt to hide the crime and admits to it
straight away.

--
Cynic

On 24 Jul, 12:01, David J wrote:


In my experience (from public galleries) is that courts are frequently
a Theatre of Lies. *The defendant lies, the police (frequently) lie.
The procecution lawyers lie. *All in the hope of confusing/bamboozling
the jury or the magistate.


Well lawyers should not (and normally do not) give evidence so you are
quite mistaken if you think they lie. They may repeat testimony said
in court which may be untrue, but that doesn't make them liers. To say
- it is the Defendant's case that XXXX or YYYY is not to say that it
is true, the lawyer has no way of knowing whether their client's case
is true or not and its not their job to make that determination,
that's for the court.

Francis

A yes/no answer will only annoy the questioner, who will generally be trying to get you involved in an argument, yes and no are perfectly acceptable answers and you won't be seen as being awkward, it's not your job to help the 'other side'.
The following post is also first class advice:
"In addition to the advice already given, a good technique is to turn
to the judge and answer questions towards him as if he'd asked them.
This is an accepted practice and tends to disconcert an unrepresented
defendent if there's no eye contact while you're giving your answers."

In article ,
amiducour wrote:
A yes/no answer will only annoy the questioner, who will generally be
trying to get you involved in an argument, yes and no are perfectly
acceptable answers and you won't be seen as being awkward, it's not
your job to help the 'other side'.

Presumably someone (the judge?) will protect you from loaded
questions like "Are you still beating your wife?" that can't
adequately be answered by either Yes or No?

Francis

Well actually such a question as to whether you are still beating your wife can easily be answered yes or no, indeed how else can you answer such a question without getting involved in a protracted argument, exactly what the asker of the question wants. The answer is no, and the same to the follow-up, ‘so you admit to beating your wife at some time?’ The point is any other answer simply invites trouble. How would you answer such a question?
As to the question of perjury, what the law says is this:
Section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911, perjury is committed when:
A lawfully sworn witness or interpreter in judicial proceedings
wilfully makes a false statement, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, and which is material in the proceedings.
The offence is triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment and/or a fine.
A conviction cannot be obtained solely on the evidence of a single witness as to the falsity of any statement. There must, by virtue of section 13 of the Perjury Act 1991, be some other evidence of the falsity of the statement, for example, a letter or account written by the defendant contradicting his sworn evidence if supported by a single witness.
On Perjury by a defendant, the DPP has this to say:
If a defendant is convicted despite giving perjured evidence, the decision to prosecute must take note of the sentence imposed for the original offence. If a conviction for perjury is unlikely to result in a substantial increase in sentence, then the public interest probably does not require a prosecution. If the defendant's lies have been planned before the hearing as opposed to arising on the spur of the moment during cross-examination, the public interest in prosecuting will be stronger.
What must also be considered is the possible consequences to the original conviction if the defendant is acquitted on a charge of perjury arising out of the earlier proceedings. It follows that the evidence of perjury needs to be exceptionally strong before proceedings are instituted.
Where a defendant is acquitted, wholly or partly because of false evidence given by him or her, a prosecution for perjury might be appropriate where there is clear evidence of perjury, which emerges after the trial, and which goes to the heart of the issues raised at the trial. A prosecution should not be brought, however, where it may give the appearance that the prosecution is seeking to go behind the earlier acquittal: see dicta by Lord Hailsham L.C. in D.P.P. v Humphrys [1977] where Lord Hailsham said:
“In an indictment for perjury like the present I would think that it is the duty of the court to apply the double jeopardy rule against the Crown not as a matter of discretion but as a matter of law where it is satisfied in substance that all the prosecution is doing is trying to get behind the original verdict by re-trying the same evidence.
But where the prosecution by calling additional evidence which it could not have had available using reasonable diligence at the time of the first trial is in substance as well as in form putting the accused in jeopardy not for the original alleged misdemeanour of which he has been acquitted (or convicted) but for his crime against justice committed by perjuring himself at the first trial, there is no double jeopardy and the prosecution is entitled to adduce the evidence and make the assertions necessary to achieve its purpose whether or not the effect is to give rise to the inference that the previous verdict of acquittal was insupportable, or the previous conviction and punishment right.”

(My under-linings for emphasis)