Why is it that you can be tried and committed for perjury ie lying under oath, but if you plead not guilty to a charge and then are subsequently found guilty, you are not charged with perjury as well?
So to steal iffys thread, Tarrant should not only have been punished for his motoring offence, but also received a further, harsher penalty for lying in the court? And this should be the same for any court appearances?
|
|
Basically you can say anything in your own defence unless you are under oath of course...
|
|
Tarrant didn't lie in court. He admitted to speeding but challenged the validity of two separate convictions for what he claimed was a single offence.
|
|
Public policy demands that only the most blatant cases of perjury, particularly those that result in a perverted outcome, are prosecuted. No defendant or witness should fear prosecution for telling his version of events.
|
...Tarrant admitted to speeding...
Not to start with he didn't, he pleaded not guilty.
He changed his plea to guilty after it became clear Mr Loophole was not going to be able to get the case chucked on a technicality.
I'm not keen on the way telling the truth is treated as just another bargaining tool in the court.
I've seen dozens of criminal cases in which a defendant pleads not guilty - lies - only to admit guilt when the Crown says it will accept a plea to a lesser charge.
Or, more worryingly, the defendant will plead guilty on the morning of his trial when it becomes clear his efforts at intimidation have failed when he's told the witness has turned up to give evidence.
On a lighter note, I remember a witness giving alibi evidence on behalf of a defendant which was obviously a pack of lies.
The witness was meant to tell the jury the defendant remained at a house party until after 2am.
But the witness got his timings in a muddle, at which point the defendant in the dock shouted: "No, you idiot."
|
|
If the charge was speeding at X miles an hour and he didn't think he was doing X miles an hour then it is legitimate to say not guilty.
|
...If the charge was speeding at X miles an hour and he didn't think he was doing X miles an hour then it is legitimate to say not guilty...
His argument was he didn't receive the NIP in time, but in any event, our system regards it as legitimate for any defendant to plead not guilty - 'reserve his position' - until all the evidence against him is available.
I've posted the story of Jermain Defoe in the Tarrant thread.
The footballer denied using a mobile while driving, maintained that position for several months, and then pleaded guilty on Friday.
|
>> Why is it that you can be tried and committed for perjury ie lying under
>> oath, but if you plead not guilty to a charge and then are subsequently found
>> guilty, you are not charged with perjury as well?
>>
>>
A plea of 'not guilty' to a charge - although you are in fact guilty is - as I understand it - saying let the evidence be heard.
|
Mmmmm.
so, for a "speeder", where the evidence is such that it can be disputed, isn't really perjury.
Was he deliberately telling porkies? Or are we back to 'recollection of events', when reminded of the facts?
There's a big difference between lying through your teeth (see archer and aitken) and a 'I don't believe that to be the case, M'Lud' scenario.
I'm awaiting a summons at present - 83 km/h THROUGH a (green traffic-lighted) junction in the centre of town at 5am in the morning on Jan 3, according to notice before prosecution.
Now, on 3 Jan, Cape Town is one HUGE party, so damn sure I'd probably have actually slowed close to a dead stop before going through said jucntion, as is my habit, cos it is a blind junction, and late-nite revellers arec prone to ignore the lights.
The fine? R200. (ie < twenty quid, sod-all in real terms.) No points.
BUT on principle - I take that road EVERY DAY at that time. For the past 3 years. haven't been accused of offence before or since Jan 3 2010.
Maybe the magistrate will listen to reason?
|
There is a Perjury Trail in Scotland just now.
Could last up to 3 months, high profile former MSP accused of perjury (along with his wife)
He has tried to get a seat as an MSP since being voted out.
If found guilty he will, with all probability, get a bed instead of a seat.
|
DAMN right. The scumbag.
As a bloke who should be whiter-than-white, to lie deliberately is a scourge on his position.
As George mcDonald Fraser said re adulterers giving it large about keeping thier extra-marital stuff 'out of the public eye'... if you can break the biggest oath you've ever made before god, who are we to trust you when you promise something to us come election time?
|
|
FB, and it isn't looking good for him so far!!
|
>> FB, and it isn't looking good for him so far!!
>>
If you excuse the pun - "He is getting a fair tanning from the prosecution" so far.
For the benefit of our fellows down Souf, the ex-MSP is /has been known to frequent a tanning Salon or 10.
|
>> >> For the benefit of our fellows down Souf, the ex-MSP is /has been known to
>> frequent a tanning Salon or 10.
>>
This is one Suvverner that is aware of the gentleman - and lady - in question.
Would you say that he is not terribly popular among his fellow Scots?.........
|
|
I think its fair to say that he has mixed responses. There are those that follow his every word and the rest of us that think he maybe had a point with some of his early protests but should really move on in life and stop making a backside of himself.
|
Perjury - R.P.
