Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate Senator Ó Céidigh on his persistence and determination in bringing this Bill forward. It is one thing to say that one will do something but quite another to do the necessary work. I echo his words regarding the gratitude owed to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, which is open to Members of the Oireachtas, for the remarkable work that has been done.

When we consider that the law with which we are dealing stretches back through the mists of time to common law and that we still do not have an easily workable law which An Garda Síochána and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions can clearly understand, it is no mystery that perjury is committed day in and day out in our courts by people who feel there is no real likelihood of a sanction against them. Senator Ó Céidigh mentioned the 2004 Act, which was introduced when I was Minister for Justice and which relates to personal injuries litigation. That Act has had some effect. I do not know whether there have been any successful criminal prosecutions under it but I am aware that solicitors and lawyers acting for their clients are under a duty to warn them that they may commit an offence which carries, I believe, a ten-year penalty for falsely making or exaggerating personal injury claims. I also know that members of the Judiciary, some more reluctantly than others - every judge is different - have had resort to the provisions of that Act which allowed them to entirely dismiss a claim which is materially and knowingly falsely made. That has been some improvement.

The point about Senator Ó Céidigh's Bill, which deals with perjury, is that civil liability is only one area in respect of all of this arises. The purpose of some of the provisions of the 2004 Act is to penalise people who supply false information with a view to the institution of proceedings. The Bill before us is more concerned with the proceedings themselves. It is the case, however, that people falsify information and deliberately tender false evidence in cases which do not just involve matters of personal injury. Individuals produce forged documents in court cases. People testify in cases relating to wills, in commercial cases and in licensing cases and there are those who testify in contract commercial cases in circumstances which are false. More importantly, in the context of the entire process of discovery on oath in criminal cases, people swear affidavits which, unfortunately, turn out to be deliberately false in that certain documents are concealed which ought to be admitted. As Senator Ó Céidigh stated , it is a matter of huge importance to the victims of perjury that there should at least be some penalty for those who attempt to inflict injustice on them. I refer here not only to cases which are lost as a result of perjury but also to those which are brought on the basis of perjured evidence, which proceed some considerable distance down the track and in which costs are incurred by, for example, small businesses.This is an important step forward. It is not the first time it has been suggested that the law of perjury should be put on a statutory basis. As Senator Ó Céidigh has said, it is entirely open to anyone to suggest an amendment or suggest different formulations of the ambit of perjury or what constitutes perjury. In any event, I believe that we need a modernising statute and that we cannot simply rely on a vague common law idea of perjury in this day and age.

Unfortunately, the proof is in the pudding. There are so few prosecutions and so few convictions for perjury. In the course of my career as a barrister I have seen many judges in civil cases say they will send the papers on the matter in question to the Director of Public Prosecutions, thus inviting the prosecution of someone for perjury. However, it all goes into the sand and no one ever hears about it thereafter.

Some people say we are in a post-religious age. This legislation is not premised on the original notion of perjury, which was a declaration before God sworn on the Bible and so on. It encompasses false statements made in statutory declarations or unsworn testimony such as testimony on affirmation. It would apply whatever one's religious beliefs, whatever God one worships or whatever view one takes of the oath. Some varieties of Christianity object to the administration of an oath in matters they consider to be profane. Whatever view one takes on that, the administration of justice and its quality depend, in the last analysis, on the quality of the evidence received. If it inures to the benefit of the person tendering false testimony that there is no real prospect of being penalised or punished in criminal law, then we can only expect that the quality of justice in our courts will be diminished. Conversely, if we can put in place a workable statutory basis for the criminal prosecution of those who perjure, either on oath or in affirmation in documents or oral testimony, then we can only look forward to improvement in the quality of justice. I commend the Bill to the House and I congratulate Senator Ó Céidigh on his initiative in bringing the Bill before us.