Cooper, R v

Section 13 of the Perjury Act 1911 imposes an absolute bar on conviction for perjury where the alleged falsity of the statement is proved solely by one witness. There must be at least two independent evidential sources establishing falsity.

A business record cannot provide the requisite corroboration if it was prepared by the same person whose oral evidence is relied on to prove falsity, and neither the record nor the witness can establish the critical matter independently. The shared human source means that the prosecution case still depends solely on that witness.

The appellant had been convicted by magistrates of using a hand-held telephone while driving. In his defence he gave evidence that his vehicle already had a working hands-free system, supported by a letter from a Halfords employee.

Subsequent enquiries indicated that the hands-free system had been fitted later than the appellant had asserted. He was tried at Preston Crown Court and convicted of perjury. The prosecution relied on the oral evidence of the Halfords employee and business records prepared by that employee. The appeal concerned whether those records supplied the independent evidence of falsity required by Perjury Act 1911, section 13.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction for perjury was quashed because it contravened section 13 of the Perjury Act 1911.

2. Section 13 prohibits conviction solely on one witness’s evidence of the falsity of the statement alleged to be perjurious. The prohibition is absolute. It is insufficient that a properly directed jury is sure of the witness’s truthfulness; there must be further evidence independent of that witness.

3. The required additional evidence may take different forms, including another witness or a document such as a confession or incriminating letter. Its source must nevertheless be independent of the witness whose evidence requires corroboration.

4. Business records may be admissible under section 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but admissibility does not answer the distinct requirement of independence under section 13. Where the records establishing alleged falsity depend on a single human source, they cannot corroborate that same source.

5. Here, the employee had prepared the records and could not establish the critical fitting date without them. Conversely, the records did not establish the alleged falsity on the critical issue without his explanation. Taken together, the oral evidence and records derived from one source and the Crown’s case depended solely upon it. The statutory prohibition therefore applied.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal and quashed the perjury conviction.

• Crown Court at Preston: Following trial before His Honour Judge Brown and a jury, convicted the appellant of perjury on 3 February 2010.