Crown Court
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838504900102 |
| Date | 01 February 1985 |
| Published date | 01 February 1985 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
CROWN
COURT
MATERIALITY
OF A
STATEMENT
R. v. Millward
If
awitness in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes astatement
material in
that
proceeding, which he knows to be false
or
does not
believe to be
true,
he is guilty of perjury: section 1(1) of
the
Perjury
Act
1911. In R. v. Millward
(1983)
78
Cr.App.R.
263,
a police
constable was charged with a single offence of perjury arising
out
of
his evidencein a magistrates' court. At the close of the prosecution's
case, the
defendant's
counsel
submitted
that
there was no case to
answer, as it
had
not
been
shown
that
the
false statements made on
oath
by the
defendant
were material in
that
proceeding.
That
proceeding
had
taken
an
odd
turn. Two Indians had
been
charged as
aresult of
their
alleged
attempt
to deceive the police
upon
the
question of which of them
had
driven a
car
upon acertain occasion.
The
defendant
police constable, Millward, who claimed to know
them and to know which was which, was outside the court with a
colleague when he saw
the
two men. His colleague
approached
the
men and asked to see their driving licences. When Millward gave
evidence, the solicitor acting for the Indians asked him
whether
he
had
not
asked his colleague to inspect the licences,
whether
he had
not known
that
his colleague
had
approached
the men
and
whether
the two policemen had not spoken
about
the
result. Millward
answered all
three
questions in the negative.
The
magistrates, being
disturbed by this line of questioning, called on the
other
policeman
to give evidence,
and
it was shown
that
Millward's answers were
lies.
The
prosecution offered no further evidence and the case was
dismissed.
The
prosecution seems to have concluded
that
Mill-
ward's lies tainted the rest of his evidence.
The
police constable's explanation of his lying was that, although
he was sure of
the
identity of the two men, he had
heard
through the
interpreter
that
the two
men
were likely to try to mislead the court
as to their identity
and,
for
that
reason, he wanted to know who they
were claiming to be when they were standing outside the court
4
To continue reading
Request your trial