Man sentenced for perjury

Press, 28 May 1981, Page 8

Man sentenced for perjury

A man, who gave evidence on oath in the District Court that he had never worn a beard or an ear-ring, pleaded guilty to a charge of perjury in the High Court after evidence was given that he had signed a property sheet listing ear-rings when he was arrested. Photographs were K' ’ ced showing him with a - at a hairdressing contest. Yesterday Mr Justice Har- - die Boys sentenced Joro Suleiman Yambasef, aged 24, a hairdresser, to do 150 hours of community service and put him on probation? for a year on a charge of perjury. Yambasef elected trial 1 by , jury on the charge of perjury but' changed . his plea to ,

guilty during the course of the trial. Evidence was given that Yambasef had given false evidence on oath in the District Court on March 7, 1980, that he had never worn a beard or an ear-ring for the last few years, during a defended hearing on charges of supplying cannabis to an undercover constable' and receiving a television set which he knew had been stolen. The charges were dismissed. Mr S. G. Erber, for Yambasef, said that his client had denied the perjury charge becaue he found it difficult to accept that he was guilty of the offence when he had been proved innocent on the. original charges.

Although Yambasef had frequently changed his job he had been in constant employment. He was married and was supporting two young children. Perjury was difficult to detect but in this case it had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice or somebody else being put in jeopardy. It was not the perjury which had enabled Yambasef to be found not guilty on the original charges, Mr Erber said. Mr D. J. L. Saunders, for the Crown, said that this was a premeditated and planned offence and Yambasef’s evidence had been supported by his mother. There was nothing in the evidence which suggested that the detective

sergeant in charge of the.; case , had turned it into a] witch hunt. . . >■ 'J His Honour said that fie* wanted it clearly understood that perjury was a serious offence-which cut right at the heart of the administra-1 tion of justice. The courts had to decide the cases] solely on the evidence] presented. An accused could take refuge in silence but he was' not entitled to go into the witness box and give false, evidence. “Your lies were intended to mislead the court and; were- serious,” his Honour, said, “and jail is the usual penalty for perjury but it is not called for in this case.” *