Perverting The Course Of Justice Prosecutions
⚖️ Perverting the Course of Justice: Overview
Perverting the course of justice is a serious common law offence in the UK. It involves any conduct which obstructs, prevents, or interferes with the administration of justice. This includes acts intended to mislead or interfere with investigations, prosecutions, or judicial proceedings.
Examples of Perverting the Course of Justice:
Fabricating evidence
Destroying or hiding evidence
Intimidating or threatening witnesses or jurors
False accusations or confessions
Failing to disclose material facts deliberately
Assisting offenders to evade justice
Legal Elements:
Act or omission that interferes with justice.
Intent to pervert or obstruct the course of justice.
No specific statute governs this; it’s a common law offence.
Penalties:
Conviction can lead to imprisonment, often several years.
Serious nature due to threat to the integrity of the legal system.
🧑⚖️ Key Case Law on Perverting the Course of Justice
1. R v. Andrews (1937) 26 Cr App R 167
Facts:
Defendant gave false information to the police to protect another person suspected of murder.
Legal Issue:
Is providing false information to obstruct an investigation perverting the course of justice?
Court’s Reasoning:
The court held that giving false information to mislead the police amounts to perverting the course of justice.
Intent to deceive and obstruct is critical.
Outcome:
Confirmed that deliberately misleading law enforcement can constitute this offence.
2. R v. Shaw (1988) 87 Cr App R 331
Facts:
The defendant destroyed evidence in a murder investigation by disposing of a weapon.
Legal Issue:
Does destroying evidence amount to perverting the course of justice?
Court’s Reasoning:
Destroying or concealing evidence that is material to a case is an act intended to obstruct justice.
The defendant’s actions were held to amount to the offence.
Outcome:
Established destruction of evidence as a clear form of perverting justice.
3. R v. Gowans (1997) 2 Cr App R 198
Facts:
The defendant intimidated a witness to prevent them from giving evidence.
Legal Issue:
Is intimidating a witness part of perverting the course of justice?
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found that threats or intimidation designed to stop witnesses from testifying undermine justice.
Such conduct qualifies as perverting the course of justice.
Outcome:
Witness intimidation is a criminal offence under this principle.
4. R v. Hudson and Taylor [1971]
Facts:
Two girls gave false evidence in court to protect a friend.
Legal Issue:
Whether giving false testimony in court amounts to perverting the course of justice.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court held that knowingly giving false evidence is a serious interference with justice.
Intent to mislead the court suffices.
Outcome:
Confirmed that perjury or false evidence is a form of perverting the course of justice.
5. R v. Z (2005) EWCA Crim 101
Facts:
The defendant fabricated an alibi and submitted false evidence to the police.
Legal Issue:
Is fabricating an alibi to mislead the police perverting the course of justice?
Court’s Reasoning:
Fabrication of evidence and providing false statements to authorities are core elements of the offence.
The defendant’s actions were intentional and aimed at obstructing justice.
Outcome:
Reaffirmed that falsifying alibis or evidence is prosecutable.
6. R v. Khan (1997)
Facts:
The defendant failed to disclose key evidence to the prosecution, which could have influenced the trial.
Legal Issue:
Is failure to disclose material evidence perverting the course of justice?
Court’s Reasoning:
While the failure to disclose can amount to perverting the course of justice, the defendant must have intended to obstruct justice.
Mere negligence is not enough.
Outcome:
Clarified the mental element required—deliberate intention to obstruct justice.
7. R v. Fulling [1987] Crim LR 462
Facts:
A solicitor was charged with perverting the course of justice for assisting in fabricating evidence.
Legal Issue:
Can a professional (e.g., lawyer) be guilty of perverting the course of justice by facilitating false evidence?
Court’s Reasoning:
The court confirmed that anyone who deliberately helps or encourages the offence is liable.
Professionals have no immunity.
Outcome:
Confirmed liability extends to those aiding perversion of justice, including professionals.
📌 Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Andrews (1937) | Giving false info to police | False info to mislead = perverting justice |
| R v. Shaw (1988) | Destroying evidence | Destruction/concealment = offence |
| R v. Gowans (1997) | Intimidating witnesses | Threats to witnesses = perverting justice |
| R v. Hudson and Taylor (1971) | Giving false testimony | False evidence = perverting justice |
| R v. Z (2005) | Fabricating alibi | Fabrication of evidence = offence |
| R v. Khan (1997) | Failure to disclose evidence | Intent needed to pervert by non-disclosure |
| R v. Fulling (1987) | Professional assisting false evidence | Aiders liable regardless of profession |
✅ Conclusion
Perverting the course of justice covers a wide range of criminal behaviours aimed at undermining the judicial process. Courts require that the accused had intent to obstruct justice, and acts can include:
Giving false information,
Destroying or fabricating evidence,
Intimidating witnesses,
Submitting false testimony,
Concealing or failing to disclose important evidence,
Assisting others to evade justice.
These cases highlight the principles and the seriousness of protecting the integrity of the legal system. Convictions typically lead to severe penalties due to the fundamental threat such conduct poses to justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments