PERJURY BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 23 February 1911)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD, LOREBURN)
My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I do not propose to say much, but I think it is due to the House to say a little. This Bill is the first of a series of Bills which, as I have stated to the House, I propose to introduce for the purpose of the consolidation and codification of the criminal law of this country. This is a thing in itself very desirable, both for our own sakes at home and also because there has been from time to time a demand from the Colonies and Dependencies of the Crown for some statutory statement of what the criminal law of England really is, so that they might adapt it as far as they could. The Bill was read a second time in the last Parliament, and referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, over which I had the honour to preside. We met some eight or ten times, and we did our very best simply to reproduce the existing law both statutory and common. That, I think, we have succeeded in substance in doing.
It is only right, however, to tell your Lordships that the Bill introduces a very slight alteration in the law, which arises 145 from the fact that there are scores, if not hundreds, of different Acts of Parliament which contain the laws relating to perjury and the punishment of it, and to false statements not on oath and the punishment of them, and these we had to consolidate with the common law on the subject. It so happened that those who had drawn many of these Acts in the past never took the slightest trouble to see that the punishments for the same class of offence in one Act corresponded to the punishments for the same class of offence in the other Acts of Parliament, and if, therefore, we had absolutely reproduced the offences and the punishments for them as they appear in the Statutes we would have had an enormous schedule which would have shown not any very great diversity, but still diversity, without any apparent reason and without any practical justification.
What the Joint Committee say is this— As the Bill was originally introduced it contained a schedule so as to preserve the existing punishments unaltered (see Clause 5 and First Schedule;, and as an example of the diversity of these punishments the Committee. would draw attention to the case of the Government Annuities Acts. By the Act of 1853 a false declaration under that Act is made punishable as perjury; that is to say, it renders the offender liable to the maximum punishment of seven years' penal servitude. By the Act of 18872 false declarations for the purposes of the Government Annuities Acts (including the Act of 1853) are made punishable with the maximum. term of twelve months' imprisonment. They give other illustrations, and then the Committee say this, as summing up what we thought it was necessary to do— The Committee recognise that the amendments they have introduced in Clauses 5 and 6, for the purpose of making punishments more uniform and generalising the law so as to make it applicable to false statements under future as well as past Acts, go beyond codification and consolidation in the strict sense. But unless such a change be made the Committee consider that it would hardly be worth while to attempt to codify the law at all, and they think it undesirable that so small an obstacle should prevent the realisation of so desirable an object; the more so as the alterations they are making are merely in the maximum punishments which may be inflicted, and generally in the direction of decreasing them, and will in practice probably have little or no effect on the punishments actually awarded. With that exception, and it was an exception absolutely necessary unless we were to introduce a large schedule which would make the Bill so cumbrous that it would be of no value to anybody, we have loyally attempted to reproduce the existing law. It has been a very laborious business 146 —twelve pages of the Bill are taken up with repeals of old Statutes—and I am sure that all the members of the Committee did their very best and we came to a unanimous decision without having differed upon any single point. I trust that, in these circumstances, your Lordships will not think it necessary in this Parliament to again send to another Committee, which would probably be composed of the same persons, a Bill which was so fully considered only last year, but will accept the finding of that Committee as if it were made this year. I understand that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice proposes to introduce one Amendment in Committee which I believe I shall be able to assent to altogether. I hope my noble and learned friend will not have more Amendments, because, if we are to try to work this business out on the floor of the House, we cannot do it. It is far too detailed and complicated, and I hope your Lordships will take it on the faith of the Committee.

§ LORD ALVERSTONE
My Lords, I wish to tender my personal thanks to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his extreme courtesy in this matter. He was good enough not only to send me the Report of the Committee before it was published, but he also allowed me to see the draft of the Bill and the reports of the draftsmen on the various changes—a privilege I had no right to expect, but which has been of the greatest assistance to me. I should like to be allowed to congratulate the Lord Chancellor on the Bill, and to assure him, speaking for the Judges, barristers, and other practitioners, that we are deeply indebted to him and the Committee. I need only mention, as indicating the extent of the Committee's labours, that the Schedule repeals from 100 to 200 Acts of Parliament. One could never be quite certain, when one took up these Acts, that there was not some amending Act which required to be considered; and although, of course, there are valuable text books, the administration of the law with regard to perjury has always been a matter of very great difficulty. A further illustration of the value of the Bill is afforded by the fact that under Clauses 5 and 6 alone the punishments under twenty 147 Acts have been made uniform, whereas, previously, there was a discrepancy as to what the maximum sentence might be. It is very important to have such a law as that of perjury in as few clauses as possible. There is one other amendment of the law to which the Lord Chancellor has not called attention. By Clause 1, sub-clause (6) it is provided that— The question whether a statement on which perjury is assigned was material is a question of law to be determined by the Court of trial. The question whether the materiality of a statement should be treated as a question of fact and left to the jury or should be decided as a matter of law has been a good deal discussed for many years. This Bill decides, rightly in my judgment, that materiality should be a question of law, as it is difficult to convey to juries what is material. There may be statements which are morally wrong, but which, after all, may not be essential or material. I sincerely trust that this Bill, which is only the precursor of many other Bills, will not only be read a second time, but will be passed into law.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
My Lords, I listened with interest to the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is obviously impossible in the case of a Bill of this kind, which deals with a great number of Statutes, to go into detail. The Bill must be taken on trust. It has been examined by the Joint Committee presided over by my noble and learned friend; it has been read by those most competent to express an opinion on the subject; and as it has passed their criticism I am sure none of your Lordships would lightly desire to intervene in such a difficult and complicated matter. There is only one point to which I would call attention. I refer to the clause which excludes Ireland front the operation of the Bill. I always prefer, if possible, that when there is an amendment made in the law it should be extended to Ireland, rather than that a separate Codification Bill should be required for that country. I do not, however, intend to make that a subject of discussion. I merely rose to express my entire approval of the course suggested by my noble and learned friend.