I came across a story in the Irish Examiner recently that had me a little perplexed. It concerned an incident that took place in Ennis District Court when Judge Patrick Durcan said that a trainee accountant told “a pack of lies and perjured himself” after giving sworn evidence that he did not receive a Garda fixed charge penalty notice for speeding in the post.
The accountant, Mr Sutton, was detected speeding on a motorway. After Judge Durcan refused to accept Mr Sutton’s claim that he never received the fixed charge notice, he convicted him, fined him €750 and banned him from driving for one year. Mr Sutton will also get five penalty points on his licence as a result of the conviction.
Judge Durcan also requested the prosecuting garda inspector to refer Mr Sutton’s evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) “because it is very obvious to me that a further offence has been committed in this court today.”
He said: “The sooner the State takes on board people coming into this court suited and booted and looking the part and yet like a nut, they are split and cracked wide open when pressure is applied. I am appalled that someone who is an educated person, who has every opportunity in life and is on the road to becoming an accountant came in here and told a pack of lies and perjured himself. There is nothing as appalling as a liar — somebody who comes in here and perjures himself and tries to get out of an offence of this nature.”
Judge Durcan said that in evidence, Mr Sutton “persisted in the lies when cross-examined by Sgt Molloy.” Mr Sutton was one of two motorists Judge Durcan banned from driving for one year after not accepting evidence that they didn’t receive the fixed charge penalty notice in the post. Judge Durcan’s new “get tough” stance when not accepting evidence that motorists did not receive their notice in the post follows the judge last month in court stating that his courtroom was “stinking of perjury”.
On the one hand, it’s refreshing to hear a judge getting a little bit miffed at being lied to in a court and it’s reassuring to see him taking a stand against someone, he believes, is telling lies under oath. In fact, there are many who would say that it’s about time. On the other hand, I find it incredible that he seems to be surprised. He sounds as if this is the first time that he has come across a defendant in a court case that has deliberately misled the court.
Having spent over thirty-five years as a member of An Garda Siochana I would suggest that the number of defendants in a District Court who tell lies would far outweigh the number who tell the truth. Criminals constantly lie about having committed a crime or about being anywhere near the scene of the crime and they lie about who was with them at the time. When they’re caught with stolen property they will deny that it’s theirs and they will swear on a mountain of bibles that they never saw it before. Most of them wouldn’t admit to being alive if they thought it would get them off. Telling lies is what they do.
Before they are sentenced many of them will offer further lies in mitigation. They will tell the judge that they have reformed and that they are on the road to recovery. They will swear that they have kicked the demon drink and drugs into touch and they have completely turned their lives around and will vow never to offend again. Basically, they will say whatever it takes to get off. Judges in the District Courts across the country hear this, week in and week out. They will regularly see the same people in front of them repeating the same promises only to see them broken time after time.
So it sounds strange to me that a judge is making an issue of perjury at this point in time. You can witness the most outrageous lies in any court house on any day of the week. Those who live outside the law consider the legal system to be a game, a game that allows defendants to use all means at their disposal to avoid being convicted. They won’t lose a wink of sleep over lying in court.
Witnesses often tell untruths when giving evidence too but more often than not, it is unintentional. Many people can have different interpretations of the same event and each will genuinely believe that their account is the most accurate. If you ask ten people to describe the same incident you will find several versions that bear little comparison to each other, simply because they had a different perspective of the event. That is understandable.
Perjury is a horse of a different colour and is a criminal act. It occurs when a person lies or makes statements that are not truthful while under oath. Perjury can lead to the miscarriage of justice and it can corrupt the legal process but it is difficult to prove. Even in the family law courts, people routinely alter the facts in relation to their assets and their income, in order to influence the outcome of child support, alimony or the distribution of assets.
So, the discovery that someone has been telling porkies in court shouldn’t come as any great surprise to anyone involved in the justice system. Perhaps what made this incident warrant more interest than normal is the fact that the defendant in this case was a young professional man with the prospect of becoming a respected member of the community. Perhaps the lies from the mouths of the great unwashed don’t have the same impact.