PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO ss. 2 TO 5 (Hansard, 23 July 1968)

§ The Solicitor-General

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 7, line 5, at end insert: (5) If any person in a certificate tendered in evidence in civil proceedings by virtue of section 5(4) of this Act wilfully makes a statement material in those proceedings which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both. This Amendment attracts a criminal penalty to the wilful making of a false statement in a certificate tendered in evidence under Clause 5(4), which deals with statements produced by computers; a certificate to the effect that the conditions have been satisfied under which a computerised record is admissible.

As introduced, the Bill contained no criminal sanction in respect of statements contained in such a certificate. Whether there should be a criminal sanction is debatable, and thought was given to this matter in Committee. On the one hand, if the certificate procedure is to be freely used, those concerned must not be, so to speak, frightened off. The attachment of such a sanction could have that effect. We felt that we might possibly run the risk of reducing the overall usefulness of the procedure.

On the other hand, not all parties to civil actions are scrupulously honest and the absence of any sanction might lead a dishonest person to tell a deliberate lie in the knowledge that he would not, in the normal course, have to go into court to support his statement on oath and thus expose himself to a possible prosecution for perjury. Moreover, the honest but possibly not too careful man has nothing to fear under this Amendment, because the offence is committed only if the falsehood is wilful.

12.15 a.m.

The arguments that took place in Standing Committee indicated, certainly to my mind, a rather striking amount of support for the principle that a criminal sanction should apply in this instance. That view was expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), the hon. and 448 learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) and others. I undertook to give further consideration to the point, and on the strength of that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman withdrew his Amendment.

When I gave this undertaking I made it clear that in any event it would not be desirable, in my view, to require a statutory declaration since to make that requirement would greatly complicate the procedure and would lead to unnecessary expense. I accordingly indicated that a better precedent was likely to be afforded by Section 89 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967. Under that Section a person who wilfully makes a false statement in a statement in writing tendered in evidence in lieu of his giving oral evidence in committal proceedings or at a criminal trial, is liable on conviction on indictment to two years' imprisonment or a fine, or both.

The proposed new subsection (5) to Clause 6 follows Section 89 of the Criminal Justice Act in this respect. It also follows Section 89 in attracting a criminal penalty only to a false statement which is material in the proceedings in which the certificate is tendered in evidence. Thus, in effect, the offence will be committed only if the deliberate falsehood relates to one or other of the conditions of admissibility applicable to the computerised record in question. No offence will be committed if the person concerned chooses, for what may be good reasons, to conceal, for example, his true name. In this instance we have thought it well to take account of the strength of the views expressed on this point in the Standing Committee, and I trust that the Amendment will be welcomed.