FALSE EVIDENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 20 April 1925, Page 4

FALSE EVIDENCE

MAGISTRATE’S COMMENT. AUCKLAND, April 17. If one may judge by the notorious amount of lying that is practised in Courts of Justice, there must he very many witnesses who treat tlictir preliminary oath with much unconcern. Questioned this morning, Mr J. M. Povnton, S.M., estimated that onethird of those who testify in Courts of law do not tell the truth. “ That ‘ somebody is lying’ is a I act that is apparent in many cases, both in the Supreme and the Magistrate’s Courts. The conflict of evidence is sometimes so grave that learned Judges find it necessary to themselves question witnesses most carefully, and to comment sternly on what they realise is false.

“ Lying lias always been the banc of the Courts,” said Mr Boynton.

“Five hundred years ago the punishment for it was boring the tongue with a red-hot iron. There was just as much perjury in those days as there is now. Even at the institution of the Lord’s Supper some of those present were not exempt, as was shown by Peter, who, on the same day, denied that lie knew his Master.”

The Magistrate expressed the opinion that nine-tenths of llie perjury 'committed in Court was done by friends of accused persons, as a means to getting the hitter out of then predicaments. There was little perjui.v that actually injured other people, and that was the great danger ot the offence. In this way justice was defeated. Fortunately, however. Judges and Magistrates were so used to lying witnesses that they could see

through ” them, at once; so much so that false statements, sworn on sacred oaths, did not often affect, their judgments. Frequently judgments were given against the depositions of half a doeu witnesses, for the Bench, altei weighing the facts impartially, realised (hat their evidence was nothing none than a “ frame-up.”

That there should he a summary method of dealing with palpable liars in the Courts, instead of the existing round-about formality of an indictable offence, was the opinion of eminent Judges and nearly all Magistiates. There should he a much shorter method of dealing with this class ol offence. especially with the “genial perjurer,” who poured out false words to help a friend in need. A sentence of even forty-eight hours would he more of an effective deterrant in such cases than the present cumbersome method was Air Poyntoil’s opinion.