Perverting the Course of Justice/Contempt of Court/Perjury Etc

Perverting the Course of Justice/Contempt of Court/Perjury Etc.

318.12Incriminate innocent people, Trying toRape claims Cases

See also:R v England 2010 EWCA Crim 1408, 2011 1 Cr App R (S) 51 (p 335) (False rape complaint. Individual not targeted. Psychiatric report detailed a dissociative state. 12 months not 18.)

Note: The case seems to fail to take into account properly the victim was arrested and held in custody, the enormous police enquiry that was launched and the need to protect real rape victims by reducing the number of false claims of rape with deterrent sentences. Ed.

318.12aJuror using Facebook etc.

Att-Gen v Fraill and Sewart 2011 EWHC 1629 (Admin)F admitted contempt of court and S was found to be in contempt. F was a juror in a drugs trial in which S and S’s partner, K, were defendants. Repeatedly, the Judge instructed the jury that they were not to access the Internet to research aspects of the case, and that their decision must solely be based on what they heard in court. The jury retired to consider their verdict. S was acquitted but her co-defendants awaited verdicts. The Judge subsequently received information that an unidentified juror had contacted S via Facebook. He questioned the jurors and upon F’s admission, discharged the jury. It was discovered that after S had been acquitted, F contacted her through a false Facebook profile and revealed that she was a juror in the trial. F provided details of jury deliberations and thoughts on the remaining charges. F and S agreed not to reveal that they had been in contact. S said that she would try to get compensation for the 14 months spent on remand, and should F stay in touch, she would get a nice present. S subsequently contacted her solicitor and it was arranged that the Judge would be informed. F also conducted Internet searches into S’s co-defendants. F was of good character and claimed that she had contacted S in order to convey her compassionate concern for S. S was arrested when her child was 10 months old, spent 14 months on remand, and on her acquittal had been reunited with her child. Held. Misuse of the Internet by a juror is always a most serious contempt and in the context of the maximum two-year custodial sentence, custody is virtually inevitable. The sentence is intended to ensure the continuing integrity of trial by jury. F was not involved in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. S’s contempt would not have occurred but for F contacting her, however, she did respond knowing that F was a juror. Though her conduct was contumacious, she did not benefit from the information. For F, 8 months, for S, 2 months suspended (because of time on remand and the separation from her child).

318.24Restraint Order, Breach of

R v Baird 2011 EWCA Crim 459 D pleaded to five breaches of a Restraint Order. The SFO charged him with fraud and a Restraint Order prohibited him from disposing etc. of assets (with exceptions for living expenses) and required disclosure of all assets worth over £1,000 transferred to others since 2005. D failed to provide information relating to his assets within 21 days, however this was eventually provided. D did not comply with a provision of the order requiring information of all persons holding his assets. He also transferred property to a former partner for no consideration. This was later sold for £535,000. He also sold an expensive Ferrari which he failed to mention. He subsequently used a false passport to open a bank account into which he paid €4,000. There were further breaches involving the application for another false passport and payment of sums into a bank account, representing a further disposal of assets. D was sentenced to 6 months for the passport offences. He was otherwise of good character. The Judge regarded the breaches as a serious matter. Held. The Judge was entitled and right to say that enough was enough. The argument that there was here engagement with and co-operation with the SFO is fatally undermined by the deceptions which D was perpetrating in false names.18 months was not manifestly excessive.

318.30Witness interferenceThreats made

See also: R v Smith 2011 EWCA Crim 972 (Plea on rearraignment to intimidation. In breach of Suspended Sentence Order. In drink, attended home of a witness to an assault. Defendant was not the man who committed the assault, but the victim of the intimidation gave a statement that he was. Made threats to victim’s son. No violence. 2 years 8 months.)