The defendant appealed his conviction for perjury. On being accused of using a mobile phone when driving, he claimed to have been using a hands free system. Evidence later showed that his kit had been fitted only after the date of the alleged offence. The defendant said that no independent corroboration had been provided of that evidence as required by section 13 of the 1911 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Judge LCJ said: ‘the evidence of one witness as to the falsity of the statement given in evidence is not enough to found a conviction. For this purpose there must be at least two pieces of evidence, at least one of which must be independent of the witness called to establish the falsity of the statement. There must be some evidence ‘in addition’ to that witness. This may be provided by two or more witnesses, it may be provided by one witness and a document, for example, a confession by the defendant, or an incriminating letter written by him. But the necessary further evidence must be independent of the witness whose evidence requires corroboration, coming from a source independent of him. Material which is not independent of the testimony to be corroborated is not capable of amounting to corroboration.’
A jury may not convict in the absence of such corroboration.
In this case the judge had allowed the witness’s own records as corroboration. Though the laws of evidence had moved forward, this statutory requirement had not changed. The business records could not speak without the witness’s production of them, and could not count as independent corroboration.
Judge LCJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 979, [2010] WLR (D) 115, [2010] 2 Cr App R 13, (2010) 174 JP 265, [2010] 1 WLR 2390, [2010] Crim LR 949
Bailii, WLRD
Perjury Act 1911 13
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Threlfall CCA 1914
The court considered an allegation of perjury under the 1911 Act, saying: ‘The section . . amounts to this, that there can be no conviction on the evidence of one witness alone; there must be one witness and something else in addition’ . .
Cited – Rex v Baskerville 1916
. .
Cited – Regina v Carroll and others CACD 1993
The defendants appealed against their convictions for perjury, saying that the judge had failed to remind the jury of the need for the falsity of the statement at issue to be corroborated by a second independent witness.
Held: The falsity of . .
Cited – Regina v Rider CACD 1986
The defendant had obtained a divorce by forging her husband’s signature on the acknowledgment of service and elsewhere, and then swore an affidavit identifying the signature. The only evidence against her on the charge of perjury was her husband’s . .
Cited – Regina v Hamid and Hamid CACD 1979
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence, Crime, Road Traffic
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.409982
