Re, S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1972 [2002] EWCA Crim 2392 (14 October 2002)

Re, S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1972 [2002] EWCA Crim 2392 (14 October 2002)

The common-law offence of perverting the course of public justice is committed where false evidence is given or made with the intention to pervert the course of justice, regardless of whether the motive was to achieve a just result or to protect someone; the process, not the outcome, is protected by the law.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Crim 2392
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Offender/respondent: WPC (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Attorney General's Reference (criminal) / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1972
Outcome
Reference answered in the affirmative; the answer to the legal question is 'yes'.
Legal Topics
Perverting the Course of Justice, False Evidence, Intention Vs Motive, Common Law Offences
Criminal Law Perverting the Course of Justice False Evidence Intention Vs Motive Common Law Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

WPC (unnamed)

Offender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Attorney General's Reference (criminal) / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1972

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the common-law offence of perverting the course of public justice is committed where false evidence is given or made, not to defeat what the witness believes to be the ends of justice, or not to procure what the witness believes to be a false verdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The common-law offence of perverting the course of public justice is committed where false evidence is given or made with the intention to pervert the course of justice, regardless of whether the motive was to achieve a just result or to protect someone; the process, not the outcome, is protected by the law.

Court Disposition

Reference answered in the affirmative; the answer to the legal question is 'yes'.

Orders

  • The learned judge ought to have left the case for the jury's consideration.
  • There was evidence for the jury to consider intention to pervert the course of justice.