Sunday, 30 September 2012
LAWS Perjury, Perverting Justice & Negligence
PERJURY ACT 2011
(1)If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . F1 for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.
(2)The expression “judicial proceeding” includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and examine evidence on oath.
(3)Where a statement made for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is not made before the tribunal itself, but is made on oath before a person authorised by law to administer an oath to the person who makes the statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, it shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as having been made in a judicial proceeding.
(4)A statement made by a person lawfully sworn in England for the purposes of a judicial proceeding—
(a)in another part of His Majesty’s dominions; or
(b)in a British tribunal lawfully constituted in any place by sea or land outside His Majesty’s dominions; or
(c)in a tribunal of any foreign state,
shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as a statement made in a judicial proceeding in England.
Read full legislation in the link below for English courts, For people who live overseas, there will be the information available online to access. (1)
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
Perverting the course of justice can be any of three acts:
Fabricating or disposing of evidence
Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
Intimidating or threatening a judge
Also criminal are:
conspiring with another to pervert the course of justice, and
intending to pervert the course of justice.
Doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice is an offence under the common law of England and Wales.
This offence, and the subject matter of the related forms of criminal conspiracy, has been referred to as:
Perverting the course of justice
Interfering with the administration of justice
Obstructing the administration of justice
Obstructing the course of justice
Defeating the due course of justice
Defeating the ends of justice
Effecting a public mischief
This proliferation of alternative names is "somewhat confusing".
This offence is also sometimes referred to as "attempting to pervert the course of justice". This is potentially misleading. An attempt to pervert the course of justice is a substantive common law offence and not an inchoate offence. It is not a form of the offence of attempt and it would be erroneous to charge it as being contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
Perverting the course of justice carries maximum life sentance.
What is the difference between Perverting the course of justice and obstructing justice is answered here by an ex police officer.
"Perverting the course of justice is an conscious act which is intended to prevent the normal application of law, such as giving false details when stopped for a traffic offence. Obviously, justice is not served as a summons could not be issued to the right person.
Obstructing police is an conscious action which prevents or interferes with a police officer carrying out their duty. Most commonly, it is friends of people being arrested trying to pull the officer off or something along those lines but would include blocking officers entering a building where they have a lawful power of entry.
Both offences require the offender to deliberately or carelessly do whatever it is they did."
The crime of Obstruction of Justice is identified in USA. 'Obstruction can include crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials in general. It is misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office. Most commonly it is prosecuted as a crime for perjury by a non governmental official primarily because of prosecutorial discretion.'
NO OFFICER OF THE COURT is exempt from prosecution or is to be protected from crimes of perverting the course of justice. It has been clearly stated by ethical lawyers overseas that Injustice is a Crime Against Humanity. Furthermore, there are lawyers in prison in Switzerland who got greedy and there needs to be an ethical standard that can be trusted. Judicial procedings is for remedy - for the Administration of Justice not abusing law courts as a profit making machine.
Focus is on putting wrongs right. Corrupt lawyers must be removed from the legal profession for abusing their position of trust to commit crimes.
“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor." Leviticus 19:15
Misrepresentation in English law is an area of English contract law, which allows a person to escape a contractual obligation or claim compensation for losses. If one person can show that she entered an agreement because of another person's false assurances, then the other person will be unable to enforce the agreement against her, and may have to pay her damages. A misrepresentation can be an outright lie (fraud), an unintentional but careless falsehood (negligence), or an innocent slip of the tongue. In most cases English law allows escape from the bargain when a misrepresentation was made, because it holds that people should only assume contractual obligations when they have given their true consent.
Remedies are partly regulated by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. English law generally allows a contract to be unwound, so that both parties are put back into the position before the agreement was made. It may be that the misrepresentation was incorporated into the contract as a term, so as an alternative one can claim the contract should subsist and claim for a loss in expectations. In this case the misrepresentee can equally sue for damages as if the misrepresentation had been true. A misrepresentee may also sue for any losses which resulted from her relying on the misrepresentation.
More information on this subject posted in link below
'Misrepresentation is one of several vitiating factors that can affect the validity of a contract. A misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement, inducing another party to contract. For an action to be successful, some criteria must be met in order to prove a misrepresentation. These include:
A false statement of fact has been made,
The statement was directed at the suing party and
The statement had acted to induce the suing party to contract.
An action in misrepresentation can only be brought by a representee. This means that only those who were an intended party to the representation can sue.;
Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when one makes representation with intent to deceive and with the knowledge that it is false. An action for fraudulent misrepresentation allows for a remedy of damages and rescission. One can also sue for fraudulent misrepresentation in a tort action. Fraudulent misrepresentation is capable of being made recklessly. (In my experience British Law courts, lawyers and police have refused this and also said I will never find a lawyer to work to sue another lawyer in this country for their crimes)
The Queen's job becomes more appealing just to change this!
'Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.'
Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause his injury, he can recover damages to compensate for his harm.
'Negligence can be conceived of as having just three elements - conduct, causation and damages. More often, it is said to have four (duty, breach, causation and pecuniary damages) or five (duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages). Each would be correct, depending on how much specificity someone is seeking.'
BREACH OF DUTY
'Once it is established that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff/claimant, the matter of whether or not that duty was breached must be settled. The test is both subjective and objective. The defendant who knowingly (subjective) exposes the plaintiff/claimant to a substantial risk of loss, breaches that duty. The defendant who fails to realize the substantial risk of loss to the plaintiff/claimant, which any reasonable person [objective] in the same situation would clearly have realized, also breaches that duty.
Damages place a monetary value on the harm done, following the principle of restitutio in integrum (Latin for "restoration to the original condition"). Thus, for most purposes connected with the quantification of damages, the degree of culpability in the breach of the duty of care is irrelevant. Once the breach of the duty is established, the only requirement is to compensate the victim.'
These are just some aspects of the laws that are supposed to protect the people from suffering by people who lie in court. However, people may not realise that under no circumtances whatsoever is it excusable for police, lawyers or judges to lie or prevent justice. The officials who are abusing the law court to cause injustice are doing so here in the Queen's name and are Mocking God.
The crimes of murder, war and stealing peoples homes and livihood might earn a packet for the lawyers and the corporation...it is these people who think it is OK to abuse their role who are the cause of mankind suffering.
I do not need money to speak out and refuse to be silent. It was a conscientious decision not to study to be a Barrister that my father wanted to fund - at the time there were big arguments in my home and I said I never wanted to be in a case where an innocent people suffered. I would never be able to live with myself knowing that I was earning from innocent people being in prison. Unfortunately, lawyers and police earn their wages but putting innocent people in prison and for this reason there not only needs a complete clean up, there also need to be an end to ALL the human rights abuses taking place, especially with law courts.
The only reason the establishment continues with crimes, is because officials refuse to prosecute and remprimand corrupt officials for crimes.
When an expert witness statement is based on lies, this also merits being prosecuted and if in relation to a court hearing must be dealt with accordingly.
If a Barrister is to deny what an ethical expert witness statement following a medical examination, and instead lies, that results in a case being lost, he must be prosecuted and struck off. There is no exuse for this whatsoever.
When lawyers, police and judges have abused their position to lie and prevent justice, not only do they need to review why they are in the legal profession. there is an obligation to put wrongs right - even if UK law courts refuse to.
Karma comes back to everyone. Divine Justice is not avoided and while there are so may lawyers and police who believe they are exempt from prosecution - belief is not fact. There will be many prosecutions taking place and overdue. The only way to bring an end to these abuses is to prosecute corrupt officials so they do not work in the trused legal profession to clean up the shop.
There is also the necessity to review training and criteria for elibility of people to work in the legal profession. This especially applies as we move forward 'if God's New World Order requires' where justice is not injustice! For all the lawyers who have refused to work for justice and studying Human Rights Law 'because that is where the money is' - Human Rights Law is Justice for ALL and applies to all court hearings. Justice for All IS GOD'S LAW!
Peace, love and best wishes
No copyright infringement intended
Posted by Lady Pauline Maria