Expert Legal Adviser MILTON FIRMAN asks: What is meant by “Perverting the Course of Justice”?

Oct. 20, 2011 - PRLog -- You face a legal problem.  You may have sought advice and felt let down by the system.  Talk of hourly rates and vast fees.  Appointments you have to wait for, and even travel into town.  Delay, uncertainty and worry, lots of worry.  Now Milton Firman turns all of this on its head.

He advises immediately.  He is on call 24/7.  No appointments required.  He will see you at your home.  In the evenings or at weekends.  Fixed fees or no fees at all.  He is fearless and straight talking.  He is an experienced legal adviser, an expert in this field of law and offers advice regarding the best way forward for you.

This term applies to cases where a complainant of rape or domestic violence:

•makes a false allegation,
•retracts an allegation, or
•withdraws a retraction.

For the purposes of this guidance any reference to rape should be read to include other sexual offences.

Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence. It can only be tried on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence is committed where a person:

•does an act (a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient)
•which has a tendency to pervert and
•which is intended to pervert
•the course of public justice.

The term “The course of justice” includes the police investigation of a possible crime (it is not necessary for legal proceedings to have begun). A false allegation which risks the arrest or wrongful conviction of an innocent person is enough. The word pervert can mean 'alter' but the behaviour does not have to go that far - any act that interferes with an investigation or causes it to head in the wrong direction may tend to pervert the course of justice. All the prosecution needs to prove is that there is a possibility that what the suspect has done "without more" might lead to a wrongful consequence, such as the arrest of an innocent person (Murray (1982) 75 Cr. App. R. 58).

“Intention” is not the same as “motive”. (However, the motive of the suspect is likely to be important if the public interest stage is reached.) The prosecution must prove an intention either to pervert the course of justice or to do something which, if achieved, would pervert the course of justice. All that is necessary is proof of knowledge of all the circumstances, and the intentional doing of an act which has a tendency, when objectively viewed, to pervert the course of justice.

6. Where the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that is required is that the person making the false allegation intended that it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not necessary to prove that she/he intended that anyone should actually be arrested (Cotter [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. 762).

7. In some circumstances, where for example a false allegation has not resulted in the arrest of an individual, prosecutors may consider charging an offence of wasting police time rather than perverting the course of justice.

8. The offence of perverting the course of justice in the context of rape and domestic violence covers the following situations:

•Where someone makes a false allegation of rape or domestic violence.

•Where a complainant of rape or domestic violence retracts an allegation, whether false or true, an offence of perverting the course of justice may be committed.
However, there may be credible reasons why a complainant of rape or domestic violence may retract a truthful allegation and prosecutors will need to ensure that the reasons for the retraction are fully explored and understood.  

•Where a complainant of rape or domestic violence withdraws an earlier retraction

• A person who deliberately makes a false allegation in the knowledge that there is a risk that the police will conduct an investigation may be guilty of perverting the course of justice. But, in reaching a decision to prosecute, the prosecutor must be able to prove that the allegation was in fact false. If there is any question as to whether the original allegation might in fact have been true, then there is not a realistic prospect of conviction, and no charge of perverting the course of justice should be brought.

•Many rape or domestic violence cases will consist of one person's word against another's. Where this is the case, if the complainant no longer supports the prosecution, it should not be assumed that the original allegation was made with the intention of perverting the course of justice. It follows that when the complainant no longer wishes to support the prosecution but maintains that the allegation is in fact true, this is unlikely to be sufficient in itself to found a case for perverting the course of justice.

• It has never been the rule that a prosecution will automatically follow where the evidential stage of the Full Code Test is satisfied. This was recognised by the House of Lords in Purdy (R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45) where Lord Hope stated that: "It has long been recognised that a prosecution does not follow automatically whenever an offence is believed to have been committed." He went on to endorse the approach adopted by Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney General in 1951, when he stated in the House of Commons that: "It has never been the rule ... that criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution."

•Accordingly, where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

For more information, here is the deal.  Call Milton on 0161 485 1100 or 07909 900449 at any time or him at milton@miltonfirman.co.uk

Write to him at 24 Byrom Street, Altrincham WA14 2EN.

He will always be pleased to speak to you at any time.  In confidence.  With confidence.

# # #

It's Legal help lawyers and their clients to fight for real justice. We put the citizen first and fight for the civil liberties of all citizens