Using perjury laws to prevent a defence?

by David Webb

The news that the parents of Gary Dobson and David Norris, recently convicted for having “murdered” Stephen Lawrence, may face charges into whether they perjured themselves in court by giving their sons alibis strikes me as rather alarming.

While perjury is a serious crime, there has to be real evidence to bring a prosecution of this type. Unless it can be proven that their sons were not home with them that night, I don’t see grounds for prosecution. The government may think that the fact their sons have been convicted is proof enough that they must have been elsewhere, but as we have discussed on the LA blog before, their conviction seemed entirely based on videos of them making uncharitable remarks about black people on other occasions, rather than any incontrovertible evidence of guilt.

If we consider the number of people who are found guilty despite alibis given in their defence, as strong evidence of their guilt is obtained from other sources, we will see that it is very rare indeed for prosecution witnesses to be pursued for perjury. To bring charges of this kind smacks of abuse of process: it will be impossible for people to give truthful alibis to anyone in the future, if they are worried that the person will be convicted anyway, and then their evidence deemed automatically to have been “perjury”. Perjury charges should only be brought in cases of the most serious and blatant kind.

The Daily Telegraph reports that a QC has said that Theresa Norris only made known her son’s whereabouts during a trial 18 years after the death of St. Stephen: but, clearly, it is difficult for anyone to be certain about someone’s whereabouts after nearly two decades, and so this would not constitute perjury, even if the evidence turned out to be unreliable.

What we are losing in this country is a sense of the measured use of power. It was once an important principle that power was exercised reasonably, without attempting to crush resistance totally, and yet now we see the race relations lobby regularly resort to character assassination, destruction of people’s careers and even what appeared in the Stephen Lawrence trial to be an overt attempt by the judge to skew the verdict by allowing the viewing of completely irrelevant material by the jury in order to secure the desired verdict. We appear to have rule by law and not the rule of law:  there is something almost Chinese in our new legal system, where the law is used to crush opposition and not to winkle out the truth.

9 responses to “Using perjury laws to prevent a defence?

  1. >>charges into whether they perjured themselves
    I meant an investigation into whether they perjured themselves, possibly leading to charges…

    Sorry about the constant use of bad English in my blog posts!

  2. These were exactly my thoughts. The potential for a “chilling effect” on defence witnesses is enormous. Imagine, contemplating standing in a witness box, facing the prospect that your testimony may lead you to be imprisoned if it is disbelieved. Would you dare?

    There can surely be no possibility of a fair trial. Anything other than conviction would lead us to the impossible conclusion that the men were simultaneously at home, and out killing Lawrence.

    This is quite clearly a witch hunt. There must be innumerable court cases where alibis have been disbelieved by juries. As a libertarian, I feel that I should not be shocked by the rapid destruction of our liberties- it is to be expected after all. And yet, at an emotional reaction level, I still am.

  3. If someone would give us some money, I would organise a group of lawyers to produce a Criminal Code. The first part of this would deal with criminal procedure, and would enshrine all the common law protections we have lost since the 1920s.

  4. More readily useful than that would be any info on how to defeat the present attempt. Who is the best person to complain to?. Also, even in this country there must be lawyers still who can see the evil of this–is there anywhere to contribute money to counteract this attempt. Rather than drawing up legal codes it would be better to make contacts with lawyers who are sympathetic to liberty who can advise and act if money can be found.

  5. Rather shocking isn’t it? In effect this is criminalising any unsuccessful criminal defence. Anyone fancy being a witness for the defence in future?

    Yet this implication seemingly goes unnoticed in the media.

    Just when you think that the ruling elite couldn’t sink any lower, it sinks a bit lower.

  6. I’m not on facebook nor do I wish to be.Is this a link to give help to the accused?.

  7. I have been imprisoned several times and my wife charged also with racially agravated abuse and assault by the ethnic neighbours in the close.
    The charges are based on hearsay evidence and a petition of old friends of multicultural race.
    We have emphatically denied the charges and yet despite 40-50 residents compliaining there is not a shred of photographic evidence except a video taken after I had .been assaulted by a very large female neighbour across the face with a metal bar,while her husband attempted to video the expected retaliation.The woman used sightings of us to claim she had been threatened, and racially abused.This litany of lies was then presented to London Borough of Merton legal services to evict us from our home,using the muscle of the Community Police Officer for London Borough of Merton Tony Weston.The prosecution was free of charge and the fact I was in a low paid full time job means I am disqualified from Legal Aid to defend myself and the costs are 6000 pounds for every court challenge.I suspected that the neighbour was a retired employee of London Borough of Merton but freedom of information requests were denied.He husband is a writer for Merton Historical Society and I suspect masonic connections.I had been repossessed and was forced to use my credit card to attemp to secure my freedom.I decided not to challenge the civil courts and their draconian injunctions, as success was unilkely bfore a magistrate.However you are charged simultaneously in Crown Court.I decided after consultation with my barrister to stake my claim for freedom in Crown Court and ask for trial by jury.The evidence was slight based on provocation and sightings of you to place you at the scene,which was impossible to deny.However to charge you using the CPS the evidence had to be spiced up and exagerated and the police were exposed as liars,under cross examination by the defending barrister.The Community Police Officer Tony Weston was suspended by the IPCC for perjury in 2006.
    …In september 2008 our house was broken into by the Pakistani neighbour the other side who threatened to kill me and fled when confronted.The police from Micham came out and the neighbours denied there wany such person living at the property,despite talking to his wife.They eventally cutioned the guy with a slap on the wrist and instructed me to put up CCTV cameras front and rear..
    In January 2009 a Commital to Prison was shoved through my letter box for failing to apply for planning permission for the CCTV cameras.I was forced to find another 6000 pounds legal defence to secure my family solicitor and a barrister to defend my freedom.PC Weston lied agin and declared he had delivered to Commital Pocedings by hand but Judge Barnett rejected his prjured statement and dismissed the case.
    ..I was arrested the following night by the same officer and some of his mates and left for 30 minutes in the freezing cold at 11 PM awaiting a police van that never came.The alleged that I had racially abused the same woman again as before,and perjured themselves by alleging another fictitios crime.I was accused of using very similar words allegedly as John Teery is supposed to have spoken to Anton Ferdinand.I was also acccused of forcing her car off the road on my bicycle.Judge Barnett theatened the neighbour with imprisonment if she was found to be lying.The defence barrister forced a confeesion out of her that basically she hated my wife long before I ever met her 10 years previously and she had been trying to have her evicted and myself when I arrived in 2006.She did not return for more cross examination in the afternoon and the Judge awarde me costs of 12000 pounds against London Borough of Merton.
    The barrister informed it not possible to use Civil Courts to evict private tenants,only council house tenants are discriminated against in this way.He also said if all else failed he would have submitted perjuty and unfit for purpose by a serving police officer previously suspended by his own police authority.I believe he is still on the local beat,although if his record is known he would be unable to secure any convictions.Talk about double standrs from the CPS.

  8. Stan Ayers, I don’t like to hear of the way in which people are persecuted in this country – I feel sure if we had the Stasi or the KGB here, plenty of people would report their neighbours just like they did in Germany and Russia. We have the mentality.