Is a denial a false statement?

A simple question on the meaning of "false statement" ...

The following is the relevant legislation on perjury in my jurisdiction:

"Perjury

3.—(1) Any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding who wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false, or does not believe to be true, shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine, or to both."

The question is: does a formal *denial* under oath count as "making a statement"? Or is it only fully constructed statements saying something 'positive' that is false and known to be false?

This issue arises because my STBX has done precisely this.

Thanks in advance,

TammyJ

It will make no difference, the family courts very rarely pay any attention to whether people are telling the truth even under oath.

s59 wrote:

It will make no difference, the family courts very rarely pay any attention to whether people are telling the truth even under oath.

Interesting. But raises the question of why should anybody bother if that's the case? After all, if the courts don't care about true or false, why should I? Why not just fabricate a whole self-serving story and put that before the courts? This seems to be the "rational" thing to do if what you say is correct.

Also, I did a little more research and noticed that for something to count as 'perjury' the false statement has to make a *material* difference to the case. Might that be what you are referring to, i.e. cases where immaterial false statements are simply ignored because they have no bearing on the matter before the courts? Or do you really mean what you say, that they simply couldn't give a sh*t?

I speak as someone who has spent 7 years in almost continuous litigation with a vexatious ex. Every single statement they file at court is littered with untruths but whenever I've got close to flagging this up, they get emotional and the court moves things on.

The analogy I would give for contested family court hearings is if you have two young children squabbling, both saying the other one did something naughty. The judge is the parent who sighs, says they're not interested, and they should both go to their room without tea!!

s59 wrote:

I speak as someone who has spent 7 years in almost continuous litigation with a vexatious ex. Every single statement they file at court is littered with untruths but whenever I've got close to flagging this up, they get emotional and the court moves things on.

The analogy I would give for contested family court hearings is if you have two young children squabbling, both saying the other one did something naughty. The judge is the parent who sighs, says they're not interested, and they should both go to their room without tea!!

My sincerest commiserations for having had to endure 7 years of this stuff--I'm only two years into the process and have had only one (short) court appearance so far.

I recognise the analogy (and sympathise with the judge in such cases!) but perhaps I should have said that in my case the false statements are in testimony before the financial courts and all of which can be independently verified as false--there is no "He says, she says" dilemma for the judge--just a false statement and an independent document showing it to be false. Plus a track record of false denials with subsequent admissions showing they were false and that the person is prepared to lie and deny under oath.

Either way, I wish you *some* resolution that brings an end to such a tortuous process--nobody deserves such a long drawn-out "punishment".

Thanks TammyJ. Even with simple indisputable documentary evidence that proves your point the judges are rarely interested. I've had several examples where my ex has contradicted their own evidence within their own sworn statements!

That's not to say don't include this stuff in your statement - but just because something is outrageous and a clear example of the other party misleading court with supporting evidence, doesn't mean the judge will take notice or want to discuss it. So include some examples but consider not making it the central argument for your case. Have the evidence ready for the fortunate case that the judge does want to deep dive into one of your examples, but don't expect it! Good luck.

s59 wrote:

Thanks TammyJ. Even with simple indisputable documentary evidence that proves your point the judges are rarely interested. I've had several examples where my ex has contradicted their own evidence within their own sworn statements!

That's not to say don't include this stuff in your statement - but just because something is outrageous and a clear example of the other party misleading court with supporting evidence, doesn't mean the judge will take notice or want to discuss it. So include some examples but consider not making it the central argument for your case. Have the evidence ready for the fortunate case that the judge does want to deep dive into one of your examples, but don't expect it! Good luck.

Thanks s59. Will bare all that in mind, especially in the coming weeks when the Questionnaire is being drawn up in preparation for an FDR hearing in early February.