Odger's English Common Law

PERJURY. 1 99
some honest blunder, no crime is committed. But a witness
cannot escape liability by qualifying his statements by such
phrases as " I believe " or " I think," if in fact he does not
so believe or think. 1
(iv.) The statement must be material in the proceeding
—that is, it must be of such a nature that it may directly or
indirectly affect the decision of the tribunal.
" The question
whether a statement on which perjury is assigned was material
is a question of law to be determined by the Court of trial." 2
It need not be "material" in the strict sense of that word.
It need not be strictly relevant to any issue in the proceed-
ing ; it may have been given in answer to a question put
merely "to credit." 3
It may even be evidence which
properly ought not to have been admitted. 4
It is sufficient
if it in any way affects the credit of any witness, or the
probability or improbability of any matter of fact alleged
by either party in the proceeding.
(v.) At the time of making the statement the accused must
know that it is false or else " not believe it to be true." To
establish this, the prosecution has in almost every case to
prove first that the statement is false in fact. There is, how-
ever, authority for holding that if the defendant spoke the
words wilfully and deliberately and in the belief that they
were false, he can be convicted of perjury, even though they
should ultimately turn out. to be true. 5 And though this
decision was doubted, it is now good law since the passing
of the Perjury Act, which nowhere requires that the words
should in every case be false.
It is sufficient if one assignment of perjury be proved false.
On the issue whether the defendant's words were true or
false—though on no other issue in a case of perjury—he cannot
be convicted solely upon the evidence of one witness. 6 But
it is not always necessary to call two witnesses ;
1 H. v. aohletinger (1847), 17 L. J. M. 0. 29 ; 2 Oox, 200.
the evidence of
* S. 1 (6).
3 B. v. Baker, [1895] 1 Q. B. 797.
* See B. v. Gibbons (1862), 31 L. J. M. C. 98.
6 Gurney's Case (1612), ^3 Inst. 166. Cf. R. v. Mawhey (1796), 6 T. R. 619 ; 3
R. R. 282.
S.13.