Perverting the Course of Justice Options  Watch this topic  Print this topic » Normal Threaded

Previous Topic Next Topic

Admin		#1 Posted : 28 September 2009 12:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By AHS If you do not know this carries a potential life sentence. Should this be applied to Directors of companies as it is to people who lie to avoid speeding offences or is the HSWA 1974 legislation enough.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Admin		#2 Posted : 28 September 2009 13:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By Coshh Assessor It seems a bit harsh to accuse someone of perverting the course of justice just for being a director of a company.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Admin		#3 Posted : 28 September 2009 13:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By Tabs To what end? There are sufficient penalties available for harsher response from the court system, but no political / social will to invoke them. Why add more lameness to the statutes?
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Admin		#4 Posted : 28 September 2009 14:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By AHS Coshh assessor apologies those Directors prevaricating during the course of investigations.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Admin		#5 Posted : 28 September 2009 15:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By Raymond Rapp Seems a bit harsh to me as well, although the underlying sentiment makes sense. I would much rather see s37 of HSWA extended to cater for other h&s failures by senior management. I have never understood why one can be jailed for the contravention of a HSE prohibition notice, but not for seriously injuring or killing an employee! Ray
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Admin		#6 Posted : 28 September 2009 15:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By AHS I couldnt agree more I think its awful legislation but many people are being imprisoned for it; however when high end executives flagrantly lie in HSE investigations they appear precluded.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Admin		#7 Posted : 28 September 2009 15:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By John Packer In response Ray's comment above. the first is obviously willful whereas it may prove difficult to prove willful breach of the latter. Basically, doing something because you didn't know any better is bad. Doing something willfully knowing it is not acceptable is much worse but a lot harder to find solid evidence to prove.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Admin		#8 Posted : 28 September 2009 19:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By Phil Rose Am I missing something? Wouldn't the offence apply to anyone, including a Director if they WERE found to be 'perverting the course of justice'?
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Admin		#9 Posted : 28 September 2009 20:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By John Packer Yes but IMHO the prosecutor is more likely to choose to prosecute for an offence for which a conviction is more likely and proving someone is lying beyond reasonable doubt is usually very difficult. Morals aside someone is more likely to say they didn't know they were breaking the law as opposed to saying they wilfully broke the law.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Admin		#10 Posted : 28 September 2009 21:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By Phil Rose No probs, the inference of the initial post was that it couldn't be applied, and my point was that the offence could (and I would think quite possibly would) be applied to a Director if he/she committed such an offence e.g. concealing evidence or interfering with a witness
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Admin		#11 Posted : 28 September 2009 21:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By John Packer I agree. If the evidence is strong enough it should be pursued. It would set a valuable case precedence. It would be interesting to test the balance between perverting the course of justice and the defendant's right not to implicate themselves.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Admin		#12 Posted : 29 September 2009 23:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By Ron Hunter Highly unlikely given current sentencing guidelines and the fact that our Court systems are necessarily adverserial in nature. Good paper at: http://www.buckingham.ac...les/edwards-paptcojc.pdf
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Admin		#13 Posted : 30 September 2009 07:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By rucksac56 This is the new in crime for the CPS. They have even tried it when a drivers version of an accident differs from what they think happened. It was dismissed. I have no doubt we will see more prosecutions fro it
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Admin		#14 Posted : 30 September 2009 09:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest		Posted By John Packer Ron, Thanks, that was a very illuminating read. As I read that I got the impression that there would have to be an exposure of a cover up following a catastrophe of biblical proportions before there would likely be any consideration for prosecuting for perverting the course of justice.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Users browsing this topic

Guest