Odger's English Common Law

—
198 OFFENCES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
intentional. It would seem, therefore, that if a man was indicted before a
Court of Quarter Sessions for a misdemeanour which that Court had no
power to try e.g., an offence within section 20 of the Larceny Act, 1916 1—
false evidence given in that proceeding might now be made the subject
of an indictment for perjury.
The false evidence must have been given at a regular sitting
of the Court, and the Court must have been properly con-
stituted. But a mere flaw in the preliminary proceedings
will afford a perjurer no defence.
Thus it was held that, where a debtor at his examination in bankruptcy
gave false answers to questions put to him in the temporary absence of the
presiding registrar, he could not be convicted of perjury. 2
A police constable, called Hughes, procured a warrant to be issued,
without a written information on oath, for the arrest of a man named
Stanley, on a charge of " assaulting and obstructing him in the discharge
of his duty." On this warrant Stanley was irregularly arrested and brought
before the magistrates, who convicted him on the testimony of Hughes.
Hughes was afterwards indicted for perjury committed at the trial of
Stanley. He contended that he ought to be acquitted on the ground that
the original informality invalidated the whole of the proceedings against
Stanley, in which he gave evidence. It was held, however, that Hughes
was rightly convicted, although there was neither written information nor
oath to justify the issue of the warrant ; and that the magistrates had
jurisdiction to try the charge, especially as Stanley, when brought before
them, raised no objection to the trial proceeding. 3
Any judge of a Court of Eecord or of a petty sessional Court,
or any justice of the peace sitting in special sessions, or any
sheriff before -whom a writ of inquiry or a writ of trial is
executed, who is of opinion that any person has been guilty
of perjury in .the course of a proceeding before him, may
order the prosecution of such person and commit him for
trial. 4
(iii.) Next, the statement must have been made wilfully
that is, deliberately and with the intention of perverting the
course of justice. It is not necessary that the statement
should be made " corruptly," if that word is understood as
meaning that the witness was hired to commit perjury. Of
course, if a misstatement be made through forgetfulness or
1 6 & 7 Geo. V. c. 50, s. 38 (1) (b).
a R. v. Lloyd (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 215.
8 B. v. Hughes (1879), 4 Q. B. 1). 614.
* S. !).
—