HC Deb 02 July 1973 vol 859 cc24-5
49. Mr. Clinton Davis

asked the Attorney-General what proposals he has to introduce legislation to amend the laws relating to perjury and to establish a tort of perjury which could enable a victim of perjured evidence to bring an action for damages.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson)

My noble Friend has at present no proposals to establish a tort of perjury. But offences against the administration of justice, which include perjury, are included in the Law Commission's work on codification of the criminal law. It would be premature to consider legislation in advance of its report.

Mr. Davis

Is not the Attorney-General being thoroughly complacent about this? Is he aware of the very clear report which has been published by Justice, after three years' consideration, which suggested categorically that a convicted person who has suffered severe prejudice as a result of perjured evidence should not only have an automatic right of appeal, with legal aid, but should have a right to clear his name and to obtain damages for the wrong which he sustained?

The Attorney-General

As I have said, the Law Commission is working on the law relating to perjury. On the question of perjury as a tort, the hon. Gentleman should consider the difficulty, in proving damage, of, for example, proving that the false evidence given was that on which the criminal court came to a conclusion. It might even mean calling members of the jury or the judge to give evidence. Second, there is the link between a civil remedy for perjury and the question of absolute privilege. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the problem is not nearly as great as he suggests. In fact, at the most there are not more than about 50 cases each year in which a civil action for perjury could in any event be instituted.

Sir Elwyn Jones

Can the Attorney-General give an indication of when the Law Commission is expected to report on this matter? In the meantime, will he ensure that the Law Commission receives a copy of the report of Justice, which, if I may say so with great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he slightly caricatured in his observations?

The Attorney-General

I have not caricatured the report of the Justice committee, but I have explained that there are considerable difficulties, as that committee itself recognised. I shall see that the Law Commission receives the report. The commission's working paper was produced in 1970. I cannot tell the House at this time when its final report will be given.