| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 36:11:04 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,011 |
The Perjury Act 2011 section 7 says that:
1) Every person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, or suborns another
person to commit an offence against this Act shall be liable to be
proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished as if he were a
principal offender.
2) Every person who incites another person to commit an offence against
this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction thereof
on indictment, shall be liable to imprisonment, or to a fine, or to both
such imprisonment and fine.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/section/7
Is anyone aware of any case law, or media reports, where someone has been convicted under this section?
(Also, what's the difference between inciting and suborning?)
The Perjury Act 2011 section 7 says that:
1) Every person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, or suborns another
person to commit an offence against this Act shall be liable to be
proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished as if he were a
principal offender.
2) Every person who incites another person to commit an offence against
this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction thereof
on indictment, shall be liable to imprisonment, or to a fine, or to both
such imprisonment and fine.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/section/7
Is anyone aware of any case law, or media reports, where someone has been convicted under this section?
(Also, what's the difference between inciting and suborning?)
On 08/10/2025 01:31 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Perjury Act 2011 section 7 says that:
-a 1) Every person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, or suborns another >> -a-a-a-a person to commit an offence against this Act shall be liable to be >> -a-a-a-a proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished as if he were a
-a-a-a-a principal offender.
-a 2) Every person who incites another person to commit an offence against >> -a-a-a-a this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction
thereof
-a-a-a-a on indictment, shall be liable to imprisonment, or to a fine, or >> to both
-a-a-a-a such imprisonment and fine.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/section/7
Is anyone aware of any case law, or media reports, where someone has been
convicted under this section?
(Also, what's the difference between inciting and suborning?)
One is a general exhortation, done in some public manner, and the other
is a private offer of a transactional nature (eg, for money)?
I've only ever encountered the word "suborn" and its derivatives in
Jacobean drama.
On 08/10/2025 17:12, JNugent wrote:
On 08/10/2025 01:31 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Perjury Act 2011 section 7 says that:
-a 1) Every person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, or suborns
another
-a-a-a-a person to commit an offence against this Act shall be liable to be >>> -a-a-a-a proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished as if he were a >>> -a-a-a-a principal offender.
-a 2) Every person who incites another person to commit an offence
against
-a-a-a-a this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction >>> thereof
-a-a-a-a on indictment, shall be liable to imprisonment, or to a fine, or >>> to both
-a-a-a-a such imprisonment and fine.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/section/7
Is anyone aware of any case law, or media reports, where someone has
been
convicted under this section?
(Also, what's the difference between inciting and suborning?)
One is a general exhortation, done in some public manner, and the
other is a private offer of a transactional nature (eg, for money)?
I've only ever encountered the word "suborn" and its derivatives in
Jacobean drama.
I wondered whether whoever drafted the act had just discovered the
thesaurus function in his word processor.
Is there really no way of shortening "proceeded against, indicted, tried
and punished"?
The Perjury Act 2011 section 7 says that:
1) Every person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, or suborns another
person to commit an offence against this Act shall be liable to be
proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished as if he were a
principal offender.
2) Every person who incites another person to commit an offence against
this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction thereof
on indictment, shall be liable to imprisonment, or to a fine, or to both
such imprisonment and fine.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/section/7
Is anyone aware of any case law, or media reports, where someone has been convicted under this section?
(Also, what's the difference between inciting and suborning?)I might incite you to commit perjury by offering you a cash inducement,
On 08/10/2025 13:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Perjury Act 2011 section 7 says that:
1) Every person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, or suborns another
person to commit an offence against this Act shall be liable to be
proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished as if he were a
principal offender.
2) Every person who incites another person to commit an offence against
this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction thereof >> on indictment, shall be liable to imprisonment, or to a fine, or to both
such imprisonment and fine.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/section/7
Is anyone aware of any case law, or media reports, where someone has been
convicted under this section?
R v Kellett [1976] 1 QB 372 could be considered the leading authority on
the matter as it has often been quoted in subsequent judgments. (It has
been cited as an authority at least 70 times.)
Unfortunately, I do not believe it is on BAILII so I cannot give a link
to the judgment itself, but it is on VLex and elsewhere, if one has a subscription.
An overview is:
Kellett and his wife were divorcing. Their neighbour, Mr Keys, and his daughter, Mrs Glanville, gave statements in support of Mrs Kellett in
the divorce to Mr Boland, an Enquiry Agent sent by the solicitors acting
for Mrs Kellett in the divorce.
Mr Kellett did not get on with the neighbours and when he became aware
that they had given statements in support of his wife, he sent a friend,
Mrs Clarke, to their house posing as the wife of a naval officer who
might consider becoming a tenant of Mr Kellett and had her record the conversation on a concealed device hoping that his neighbours might make defamatory statements about him.
Mr Kellett then used the recording to threaten to sue his neighbours for defamation. In his letter to them, he said, "The amount of damages
etc., I will discuss with my solicitor, but firstly you might like to withdraw your statements made to Mr. C. Boland, and if so let me have
your notes to that effect".
The particulars of the first count of the case against Mr Kellett were
that "between the 21st March, 1973 and 4th April, 1973 in the County of
Devon did unlawfully attempt to pervert the course of justice by
attempting to dissuade one George Keys from giving evidence in the then impending divorce suit between Margaret Kellett and the said Alan Rex
Kellett in accordance with a statement which he the said George Keys had made." The particulars of the second count were the same in relation to Deirdre Susan Glanville.
The jury had "a very short and narrow issue to decide" namely, "whether
in that letter... the accused is threatening to bring a slander action against Mr. Keys and whether, secondly, he is doing that with the
intention of causing Mr. Keys to not give evidence which he had
mentioned in his statement to Mr. Borland."
Mr. Kellett was convicted on both grounds and received a "lenient
course" (which the Court of Appeal subsequently agreed was 'lenient'
being fined -u100 for subornation of perjury.
Tangentially, Mrs. Kellett successfully obtained her divorce decree. :-)
(Also, what's the difference between inciting and suborning?)I might incite you to commit perjury by offering you a cash inducement,
aka a bribe. I might be guilty of subornation of perjury were I to
threaten to take a perfectly valid course, (such as issuing against you
for defamation), unless you withdraw, alter or falsify your evidence.
Regards
S.P.
[1] See also R v Kellett [1975] EWCA Crim J0620-1 [2]
[2] Also not on BAILII. :-(
On 10 Oct 2025 at 08:48:07 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/10/2025 13:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Perjury Act 2011 section 7 says that:
1) Every person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, or suborns another >>> person to commit an offence against this Act shall be liable to be >>> proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished as if he were a
principal offender.
2) Every person who incites another person to commit an offence against >>> this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction thereof
on indictment, shall be liable to imprisonment, or to a fine, or to both
such imprisonment and fine.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/section/7
Is anyone aware of any case law, or media reports, where someone has been >>> convicted under this section?
R v Kellett [1976] 1 QB 372 could be considered the leading authority on
the matter as it has often been quoted in subsequent judgments. (It has
been cited as an authority at least 70 times.)
Unfortunately, I do not believe it is on BAILII so I cannot give a link
to the judgment itself, but it is on VLex and elsewhere, if one has a
subscription.
An overview is:
Kellett and his wife were divorcing. Their neighbour, Mr Keys, and his
daughter, Mrs Glanville, gave statements in support of Mrs Kellett in
the divorce to Mr Boland, an Enquiry Agent sent by the solicitors acting
for Mrs Kellett in the divorce.
Mr Kellett did not get on with the neighbours and when he became aware
that they had given statements in support of his wife, he sent a friend,
Mrs Clarke, to their house posing as the wife of a naval officer who
might consider becoming a tenant of Mr Kellett and had her record the
conversation on a concealed device hoping that his neighbours might make
defamatory statements about him.
Mr Kellett then used the recording to threaten to sue his neighbours for
defamation. In his letter to them, he said, "The amount of damages
etc., I will discuss with my solicitor, but firstly you might like to
withdraw your statements made to Mr. C. Boland, and if so let me have
your notes to that effect".
The particulars of the first count of the case against Mr Kellett were
that "between the 21st March, 1973 and 4th April, 1973 in the County of
Devon did unlawfully attempt to pervert the course of justice by
attempting to dissuade one George Keys from giving evidence in the then
impending divorce suit between Margaret Kellett and the said Alan Rex
Kellett in accordance with a statement which he the said George Keys had
made." The particulars of the second count were the same in relation to
Deirdre Susan Glanville.
The jury had "a very short and narrow issue to decide" namely, "whether
in that letter... the accused is threatening to bring a slander action
against Mr. Keys and whether, secondly, he is doing that with the
intention of causing Mr. Keys to not give evidence which he had
mentioned in his statement to Mr. Borland."
Mr. Kellett was convicted on both grounds and received a "lenient
course" (which the Court of Appeal subsequently agreed was 'lenient'
being fined -u100 for subornation of perjury.
Tangentially, Mrs. Kellett successfully obtained her divorce decree. :-)
(Also, what's the difference between inciting and suborning?)I might incite you to commit perjury by offering you a cash inducement,
aka a bribe. I might be guilty of subornation of perjury were I to
threaten to take a perfectly valid course, (such as issuing against you
for defamation), unless you withdraw, alter or falsify your evidence.
Regards
S.P.
[1] See also R v Kellett [1975] EWCA Crim J0620-1 [2]
[2] Also not on BAILII. :-(
Does incitement require a material inducement, or could it be incitement to merely ask someone to lie as personal favour?
On 10/10/2025 10:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
snip
Does incitement require a material inducement, or could it be incitement to >> merely ask someone to lie as personal favour?
No and yes, respectively. :-)
"Incitement" has a precise legal definition, established through common
law. Incitement requires "persuading, encouraging, instigating,
pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime".
It should be noted that the common law offence of incitement was
abolished on 1st October 2008 when the Serious Crime Act 2007 (SCA 2007)
came into effect.
The SCA 2007 created three new statutory offences which focus on
"encouraging or assisting" the commission of an offence.
The change was made following a Law Commission report and was intended
to close 'loopholes', such as providing information or tools to commit a crime which could be caught by the new legislation, but not by the
previous one.
Offences committed after 1st October 2008 would likely be charged using
the new framework rather than the old one as it is easier and more comprehensive.
Regards
S.P.
On 10 Oct 2025 at 11:39:41 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
"Incitement" has a precise legal definition, established through common
law. Incitement requires "persuading, encouraging, instigating,
pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime".
It should be noted that the common law offence of incitement was
abolished on 1st October 2008 when the Serious Crime Act 2007 (SCA 2007)
came into effect.
The SCA 2007 created three new statutory offences which focus on
"encouraging or assisting" the commission of an offence.
The change was made following a Law Commission report and was intended
to close 'loopholes', such as providing information or tools to commit a
crime which could be caught by the new legislation, but not by the
previous one.
Offences committed after 1st October 2008 would likely be charged using
the new framework rather than the old one as it is easier and more
comprehensive.
Regards
S.P.
Thanks, that's interesting. Sounds pretty sweeping. I suppose one should be bit careful answering questions on DIY groups, then?
The jury had "a very short and narrow issue to decide" namely, "whether
in that letter... the accused is threatening to bring a slander action against Mr. Keys and whether, secondly, he is doing that with the
intention of causing Mr. Keys to not give evidence which he had
mentioned in his statement to Mr. Borland."
On 10/10/2025 10:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
Does incitement require a material inducement, or could it be incitement to >> merely ask someone to lie as personal favour?
No and yes, respectively. :-)
"Incitement" has a precise legal definition, established through common
law. Incitement requires "persuading, encouraging, instigating,
pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime".
On 08/10/2025 13:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
Is anyone aware of any case law, or media reports, where someone has been
convicted under this section?
R v Kellett [1976] 1 QB 372 could be considered the leading authority on
the matter as it has often been quoted in subsequent judgments. (It has >been cited as an authority at least 70 times.)
(Also, what's the difference between inciting and suborning?)I might incite you to commit perjury by offering you a cash inducement,
aka a bribe. I might be guilty of subornation of perjury were I to
threaten to take a perfectly valid course, (such as issuing against you
for defamation), unless you withdraw, alter or falsify your evidence.
On 10/10/2025 08:48, Simon Parker wrote:
The jury had "a very short and narrow issue to decide" namely, "whether
in that letter... the accused is threatening to bring a slander action
against Mr. Keys and whether, secondly, he is doing that with the
intention of causing Mr. Keys to not give evidence which he had
mentioned in his statement to Mr. Borland."
OT with respect to this particular point concerning subornation, but why
was Kellett not charged with blackmail as well?
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 13:52:03 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 10/10/2025 08:48, Simon Parker wrote:
The jury had "a very short and narrow issue to decide" namely, "whether
in that letter... the accused is threatening to bring a slander action
against Mr. Keys and whether, secondly, he is doing that with the
intention of causing Mr. Keys to not give evidence which he had
mentioned in his statement to Mr. Borland."
OT with respect to this particular point concerning subornation, but why
was Kellett not charged with blackmail as well?
Because blackmail, in English law, requires the blackmailer to be intending to make gain or to cause loss, and both gain and loss are defined as money
or other property.
Since evidence in court is not property, coercing someone to either withhold it or give it is neither a gain nor loss of money or property. The fact that the coercer may stand to gain money or property as a result of winning the case isn't relevant; given that the case may nonetheless be won or lost independently of the coerced evidence the coercion is too far removed from the putative gain.