THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH: DOES IT NEED “BEEFING UP”: THE POLICE SAY WITNESSES DON’T UNDERSTAND IT’S SIGNIFICANCE!

The statement of truth is central to modern litigation, and at every stage of the litigation.  However it is worthwhile considering whether, in its current form, it is effective.

THE ACCIDENT EXCHANGE CASE

It is worthwhile reading the judgment in Accident Exchange Ltd -v- George-Broom & others [2015] EWHC 2205 (Admin). The Divisional Court refused an application  to strike out the application by the respondents. The respondents were accused of systematic fraud and perjury in giving evidence on behalf of defendants as to spot rates for hire vehicles.

WHY THE POLICE REFUSED TO PROSECUTE

  1. There followed a stay of the contempt proceedings, ordered by Stanley Burnton LJ on 3 July 2012, it seems in order to avoid any pre-emption of the police investigation. In fact the City of London Police had looked at the case earlier, before the grant by this court of permission on 1 February 2012: see paragraph 5 of Irwin J’s judgment. However, by June 2012 the papers in the case had been served on the Attorney General pursuant to this court’s direction. His office had forwarded them to the Crown Prosecution Service (no later than 28 February 2012) and the City of London Police were asked to investigate. There followed further communications with the police. At one stage Mr. Evans wrote to the Professional Standards Department of the City Police. Then on 30 July 2014 DS Massey announced that he considered the allegations advanced by AEL were not made out, and there was no realistic prospect of a criminal prosecution. Mr. Evans (paragraphs 11-12 of his witness statement of 2 June 2015) reports at some length a meeting on 28 August 2014 at which, it is asserted, he was “staggered” by what DS Massey said:

“11(b)….he said that the defendants had no professional training in respect of the justice system and because of that they could not know the meaning of the statement of truth when they signed a witness statement or the significance of swearing an oath when giving evidence in court. As a consequence, he said, it could not be established that they had intentionally deceived anybody and the court would be unlikely to convict on the basis of what was probably a mistake

(d) the fact that we had the Mirror Disk in our possession threatened the entire investigation because we were open to allegations of tampering with evidence and there was doubt in his mind as to whether any prosecution would survive such an attack from a defence barrister.”

Mr. Evans later wrote indicating that the original of the Mirror Disk remained in the possession of the Autofocus liquidator. There is a contemporary note supporting Mr. Evans’ account of what DS Massey said.”

SO AN “EXPERT” WITNESS CANNOT BE PROSECUTED BECAUSE THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The word “staggered” is, perhaps, an understatement. If what is alleged against these defendants is true (and it is not proven) there was systematic and endemic lying for commercial gain.

SO DOES THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH NEED “BEEFING UP”

If “professional” witnesses such as these cannot be held to understand the nature of the statement of truth what hope is there for the non-professional?  Perhaps only lawyers can properly understand its significance.  However we have seen on this blog:

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE WITNESS STATEMENT

If the present statement of truth is so vague and unclear  that the police feel that it is not possible to launch a prosecution when there has (allegedly) been systematic dishonesty it may be time to consider using the wording in the criminal justice system.

“This statement (consisting of       pages) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false, or do not believe to be true. “

This may need to be altered in a civil context:

“This statement (consisting of       pages) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that,  I shall be liable to prosecution  and/or in contempt of court if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false, or do not believe to be true. “

This may make a difference to some witnesses. It will, at the very least, prevent a conclusion that witnesses who sign a statement of truth dishonestly, do not realise the implications of doing so.

RELATED POSTS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: