Perverting the Course of Justice
Perverting the course of justice is a serious criminal offence that occurs when an individual intentionally interferes with the administration of justice. While the terminology varies by jurisdiction, the core of the crime involves actions that undermine the integrity of legal proceedings and the fair application of the law.
In many English-speaking legal systems, this offence is treated with extreme severity because it threatens the foundation of the judicial process. Depending on the country, it may be classified as a common law offence or a statutory crime defined within a written penal code.
[ไม่มีภาพประกอบ]Key Facts
- Maximum Penalty: In England and Wales, the offence can carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
- Core Actions: Common examples include fabricating evidence, intimidating witnesses, or threatening judges.
- Global Variations: Known as "obstructing justice" in the United States and Canada, and "defeating the ends of justice" in Scotland.
- Legal Nature: In England and Wales, it is a substantive common law offence, meaning an attempt to pervert justice is a crime in its own right.
Legal Framework in England and Wales
Under the common law of England and Wales, any act intended to pervert the course of public justice is a criminal offence. This is a broad category that encompasses several types of interference.
Common Examples of Interference
- Fabricating or disposing of evidence to mislead the court.
- Intimidating or threatening jurors, witnesses, or judges.
- Conspiring with others to interfere with legal proceedings.
- The mere intention to pervert the course of justice.
Due to the nature of the crime, it is triable only on indictment. It is important to note that "attempting to pervert the course of justice" is not an inchoate offence (a preliminary crime) but a substantive offence itself, and therefore cannot be charged under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
Terminology Confusion
Legal scholars have noted a confusing proliferation of terms used to describe this crime, including "obstructing the administration of justice," "defeating the due course of justice," and "effecting a public mischief."
International Perspectives
Different nations have codified this offence in various ways to ensure the protection of their judicial systems.
Canada
In Canada, the offence is termed "obstructing justice" under Section 139 of the Criminal Code. The law distinguishes between different levels of interference:
- Surety-related offences: Indemnifying a surety or accepting fees as a surety can lead to a maximum of two years' imprisonment or a summary conviction.
- General obstruction: Other wilful attempts to obstruct or pervert justice can result in up to ten years' imprisonment.
- Corrupt means: This includes using bribes or threats to dissuade witnesses or influence jurors.
Australia
In New South Wales, Section 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 defines the offence, with a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. Notable cases include the conviction of former Chief Stipendiary Magistrate Murray Farquhar and former Federal Court Judge Marcus Einfeld.
International Criminal Court (ICC)
The ICC addresses these issues under Article 70 of the Rome Statute. In 2020, Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda highlighted attempts to interfere with witnesses in the Kenya investigation as perverting the course of justice, leading to arrest warrants for those attempting to force witnesses to withdraw statements.
[ไม่มีภาพประกอบ]Summary of Global Legal Equivalents
| Jurisdiction | Primary Terminology | Legal Basis | Maximum Penalty (where specified) |
|---|---|---|---|
| England and Wales | Perverting the course of justice | Common Law | Life Imprisonment |
| Canada | Obstructing justice | Criminal Code s. 139 | 10 Years |
| Australia (NSW) | Perverting the course of justice | Crimes Act 1900 s. 319 | 14 Years |
| United States | Obstruction of justice | Statutory Law | Varies |
| Scotland | Defeating the ends of justice | Common Law/Statutory | Varies |
| South Africa | Defeating or obstructing the course of justice | Statutory Law | Varies |
Notable Convictions
High-profile individuals have been convicted of this offence, demonstrating that legal and political status does not grant immunity from justice interference charges.
- Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer: Both former British politicians were convicted of perjury and perverting the course of justice.
- Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce: Convicted of perverting the course of justice in relation to speeding points.
- Marcus Einfeld: A retired Australian judge convicted of perjury and perverting the course of justice regarding a speeding ticket.
- Karen Matthews and Michael Donovan: Convicted of kidnapping, false imprisonment, and perverting the course of justice.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly does "perverting the course of justice" mean?
It refers to any act that intentionally interferes with the administration of justice, such as lying to police, destroying evidence, or threatening witnesses to prevent a fair trial.
Is an "attempt" to pervert justice a separate crime?
In England and Wales, an attempt to pervert the course of justice is a substantive common law offence. It is not treated as a preliminary "attempt" under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, but as a full crime in its own right.
What are the penalties for this offence?
Penalties vary widely by country. In England and Wales, it can theoretically lead to life imprisonment; in New South Wales, Australia, the maximum is 14 years; and in Canada, general obstruction can lead to up to 10 years.
How does this differ from obstruction of justice?
In many contexts, they are essentially the same. "Obstruction of justice" is the primary term used in the United States and Canada, while "perverting the course of justice" is more common in the UK and Australia.
Can a judge or lawyer be convicted of this crime?
Yes. Notable cases, such as those of Marcus Einfeld in Australia and Bruce Hyman in England, show that legal professionals can be convicted if they interfere with judicial proceedings.