The website Oxford Academic Chapter 1 Abstract 2011 reads as below (1) (1) Perjury and proof of perjury
Perjury law, which usually applies to courtroom testimony under oath, is briefly described. Critical aspects include the need for both the questioner and the respondent to have a mutual understanding and clarity of the meanings of questions and answers. Questions cannot be ambiguous and defendants, questioners and juries should need to have to speculate or infer meanings. Answers cannot be taken out of context. To prove perjury, the defendant’s testimony must be knowingly false and must conflict with verifiable and known information held by the questioners. Since proof of perjury depends on the language used, linguistic analysis can play an important role by analyzing the separate processes of intelligence gathering and intelligence analysis, which are the keys to whether a prosecution succeeds or fails.
Few will remember an item debated at the Annual General Meeting of the Magistrates` Association in 2013. Such events have historically been a talking shop for the small numbers attending and of little interest to anyone else. There was a motion for debate:- “That this Annual General Meeting believes that the present oath and affirmation are no longer fit for purpose and should be replaced by the following: ‘I promise very sincerely to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and I understand that, if I fail to do so, I will be committing an offence for which I will be punished and may be sent to prison.’ There is zero information on the M.A. website for non members to learn if this matter was reported. My vague recollection as a non member at that time is that it was passed.
Witnesses in court currently are offered the opportunity to take the oath on an appropriate holy book or to affirm. The wording of the former is, “I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. Those who choose to affirm say, "I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth." In historical terms oath taking can be traced back to the Book of Genesis. Virtually all ancient civilisations recognised the taking of an oath as the highest level that an individual could place upon the truthfulness of his words. The Christian tradition from which current English court practice is derived originated at a time when the population believing in a literal translation of the Bible was in awe of the Church and the divine retribution for lying having taken the Lord`s name in vain. There were notable exceptions particularly Quakers who to this day will affirm rather than swear. Similar religious objections to swearing the oath are held by orthodox Jews. The manner in which a witness is asked to swear or affirm is of some significance. I often heard a legal advisor say to a witness, “Do you want to swear on your holy book or affirm?” Other forms of approach are, “ Do you have a religion?” and variations thereof. Unless the witness has a belief in divine retribution it seems to me that the oath indeed is superfluous even if it is followed by a warning of the consequences of lying. From that point of view an affirmation to tell the truth is more realistic. Over the years I noticed that the majority of police officers declined the oath and affirmed. I would leave readers to make their own conclusions on that observation. It is usually the case that very rarely if ever does a witness who might be considered Muslim or ethnically of Arab heritage decline to swear on the Koran. It seems that even when such witnesses in their evidence attest to behaviour forbidden by the Koran they have chosen not to affirm. An interesting situation took place at Liverpool Crown Court in 2015 and is relevant to this day.
Believers and non believers rarely change their opinions or reject their beliefs. It is upon the fear of a divine retribution that oaths have existed since the dawn of civilisation. It seems to me that the application of oaths to witness testimony in our courts is as archaic as a belief in the gods living in Mount Olympus.
The number of those in England describing themselves as Christian can cautiously be estimated as 50% + or – 10% depending on definitions. About 10% adhere to other religious denominations and about one third are atheist. If regular church attendance indicates the strength of Christian belief only about 10-15% of so called Christians attend church at least once monthly. In my past experience witnesses with surnames of apparent Pakistani or Arab origin rarely affirmed; they swore on the Holy Koran. When Orthodox Jews were “sworn” generally their decision was to affirm so as not to sully the holy name of Jehovah in such matters; an opposite point of principle from Muslims. They are not questioned as to their choice which could be construed as having a lesser value irrespective of the religious reasons for so doing. Affirmations are therefore generally from the white majority ethnic group. My point is to question the value of the religious oath without the court knowing the depth of religious attachment to the particular faith. Therefore from my point of view the religious Jew and the witness who affirms are being up front about their evidence……..they are telling us quite simply that they will tell the truth. We believe their evidence or we don`t. Those who swear on a holy book as if by rote and with no belief can feel free to lie. They are not constrained by fear of divine retribution. The Liverpool case could be used as an example of the placibo effect. Was not the belief itself that the correct holy book was used for taking the oath not sufficient?
Recent research has postulated that jurors who swear on a bible might be biased in that they are more likely to find a defendant guilty if that person on giving evidence affirms rather than taking the oath on a holy book. In a case where the balance of evidence might be very narrow there is, according to the study, a real risk that atheists could be in danger of conviction from god believers on the jury.
There are very few statistics on perjury in English courts. The very nature of the offence is obviously going to make detection difficult or warrant investigation futile except perhaps in very high profile cases such as this. It could be argued that when a verdict is delivered which by its conclusion contradicts witnesses` evidence there is a prima facia case of perjury taking place in most trials. We will never know. The threat of court proceedings in the event of a witness having been shown to be a liar is 99% an empty threat. In 2010 only three defendants of 37 charged were found guilty of perjury in a magistrates` court and one of those was given a conditional discharge. That is the real situation of truth telling and lying in the lower court. The only verifiable statistics I can unearth are below.
Few will remember an item debated at the Annual General Meeting of the Magistrates` Association in 2013. Such events have historically been a talking shop for the small numbers attending and of little interest to anyone else. There was a motion for debate:- “That this Annual General Meeting believes that the present oath and affirmation are no longer fit for purpose and should be replaced by the following: ‘I promise very sincerely to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and I understand that, if I fail to do so, I will be committing an offence for which I will be punished and may be sent to prison.’ There is zero information on the M.A. website for non members to learn if this matter was reported. My vague recollection as a non member at that time is that it was passed.
Witnesses in court currently are offered the opportunity to take the oath on an appropriate holy book or to affirm. The wording of the former is, “I swear by .......... (according to religious belief) that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. Those who choose to affirm say, "I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth." In historical terms oath taking can be traced back to the Book of Genesis. Virtually all ancient civilisations recognised the taking of an oath as the highest level that an individual could place upon the truthfulness of his words. The Christian tradition from which current English court practice is derived originated at a time when the population believing in a literal translation of the Bible was in awe of the Church and the divine retribution for lying having taken the Lord`s name in vain. There were notable exceptions particularly Quakers who to this day will affirm rather than swear. Similar religious objections to swearing the oath are held by orthodox Jews. The manner in which a witness is asked to swear or affirm is of some significance. I often heard a legal advisor say to a witness, “Do you want to swear on your holy book or affirm?” Other forms of approach are, “ Do you have a religion?” and variations thereof. Unless the witness has a belief in divine retribution it seems to me that the oath indeed is superfluous even if it is followed by a warning of the consequences of lying. From that point of view an affirmation to tell the truth is more realistic. Over the years I noticed that the majority of police officers declined the oath and affirmed. I would leave readers to make their own conclusions on that observation. It is usually the case that very rarely if ever does a witness who might be considered Muslim or ethnically of Arab heritage decline to swear on the Koran. It seems that even when such witnesses in their evidence attest to behaviour forbidden by the Koran they have chosen not to affirm. An interesting situation took place at Liverpool Crown Court in 2015 and is relevant to this day.
Believers and non believers rarely change their opinions or reject their beliefs. It is upon the fear of a divine retribution that oaths have existed since the dawn of civilisation. It seems to me that the application of oaths to witness testimony in our courts is as archaic as a belief in the gods living in Mount Olympus.
The number of those in England describing themselves as Christian can cautiously be estimated as 50% + or – 10% depending on definitions. About 10% adhere to other religious denominations and about one third are atheist. If regular church attendance indicates the strength of Christian belief only about 10-15% of so called Christians attend church at least once monthly. In my past experience witnesses with surnames of apparent Pakistani or Arab origin rarely affirmed; they swore on the Holy Koran. When Orthodox Jews were “sworn” generally their decision was to affirm so as not to sully the holy name of Jehovah in such matters; an opposite point of principle from Muslims. They are not questioned as to their choice which could be construed as having a lesser value irrespective of the religious reasons for so doing. Affirmations are therefore generally from the white majority ethnic group. My point is to question the value of the religious oath without the court knowing the depth of religious attachment to the particular faith. Therefore from my point of view the religious Jew and the witness who affirms are being up front about their evidence……..they are telling us quite simply that they will tell the truth. We believe their evidence or we don`t. Those who swear on a holy book as if by rote and with no belief can feel free to lie. They are not constrained by fear of divine retribution. The Liverpool case could be used as an example of the placibo effect. Was not the belief itself that the correct holy book was used for taking the oath not sufficient?
Recent research has postulated that jurors who swear on a bible might be biased in that they are more likely to find a defendant guilty if that person on giving evidence affirms rather than taking the oath on a holy book. In a case where the balance of evidence might be very narrow there is, according to the study, a real risk that atheists could be in danger of conviction from god believers on the jury.
There are very few statistics on perjury in English courts. The very nature of the offence is obviously going to make detection difficult or warrant investigation futile except perhaps in very high profile cases such as this. It could be argued that when a verdict is delivered which by its conclusion contradicts witnesses` evidence there is a prima facia case of perjury taking place in most trials. We will never know. The threat of court proceedings in the event of a witness having been shown to be a liar is 99% an empty threat. In 2010 only three defendants of 37 charged were found guilty of perjury in a magistrates` court and one of those was given a conditional discharge. That is the real situation of truth telling and lying in the lower court. The only verifiable statistics I can unearth are below.
With a charge of perjury virtually non existent in courts` proceedings is it not time to re-think the oath?
No comments:
Post a Comment