Entertaining judgment
Posted: June 20th, 2018, 12:37 am
OK, it's not really a practical issue, but it is related to a legal issue, namely the extent to which parties in civil actions lie when giving evidence.
Of course it's well known by everyone involved that witnesses lie through their teeth on a regular basis. But usually judges are remarkably - some might say far too - tolerant. So instead of a judge saying "I take the view that Mr X was a bare-faced liar" he'll say "I find it difficult to place much reliance on the evidence given by Mr X".
So it's very refreshing to see a judge calling the liars out without mercy!
In the case of Rashid -v- Munir and others, a High Court appeal case in Leeds, Mr Justice Turner pulled no punches.
In his opening comment he describes the case as a "a festival of mendacity." Some other elegantly savage extracts:
"... the second defendant who assumed de facto control of the relevant businesses, the details of the operation and profitability of which were but lightly touched upon in the tax returns of the defendants."
"Clearly, the arrangements between the brothers were unorthodox and the judge's task was made no easier by the fact that he found that the evidence of all of them was utterly dishonest."
Of the evidence of the claimant, he remarked:
"… I do not believe him on this or indeed any other material matter."
"On any view, the second defendant was egregiously dishonest…" and "in his evidence was … as heroically dishonest as he is in his everyday life."
"The third defendant gave evidence in a facetious manner, including winking at the claimant's counsel at one stage, a manner which revealed to me that he regards telling the truth as simply no more than a lifestyle choice."
And he concluded:
Attempting to establish the common but unstated intention of a group of individuals all giving honest but conflicting evidence is difficult enough. Where, as here, each witness is attempting to outdo the other in a rich display of competitive dishonesty the task of the judge is unenviable. Notwithstanding these challenges, I am satisfied that the judge applied the correct legal test and reached a conclusion which fully reflected what little objective fact he could salvage from the tangled web of deceit which the parties had so enthusiastically weaved when giving their evidence.
And best of all he said he would ensure that the case file was sent to the DPP, no doubt in the hope of a prosecution for perjury.
If only more judges were prepared to say what they think!
The full judgment is here - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2018/1258.html
Of course it's well known by everyone involved that witnesses lie through their teeth on a regular basis. But usually judges are remarkably - some might say far too - tolerant. So instead of a judge saying "I take the view that Mr X was a bare-faced liar" he'll say "I find it difficult to place much reliance on the evidence given by Mr X".
So it's very refreshing to see a judge calling the liars out without mercy!
In the case of Rashid -v- Munir and others, a High Court appeal case in Leeds, Mr Justice Turner pulled no punches.
In his opening comment he describes the case as a "a festival of mendacity." Some other elegantly savage extracts:
"... the second defendant who assumed de facto control of the relevant businesses, the details of the operation and profitability of which were but lightly touched upon in the tax returns of the defendants."
"Clearly, the arrangements between the brothers were unorthodox and the judge's task was made no easier by the fact that he found that the evidence of all of them was utterly dishonest."
Of the evidence of the claimant, he remarked:
"… I do not believe him on this or indeed any other material matter."
"On any view, the second defendant was egregiously dishonest…" and "in his evidence was … as heroically dishonest as he is in his everyday life."
"The third defendant gave evidence in a facetious manner, including winking at the claimant's counsel at one stage, a manner which revealed to me that he regards telling the truth as simply no more than a lifestyle choice."
And he concluded:
Attempting to establish the common but unstated intention of a group of individuals all giving honest but conflicting evidence is difficult enough. Where, as here, each witness is attempting to outdo the other in a rich display of competitive dishonesty the task of the judge is unenviable. Notwithstanding these challenges, I am satisfied that the judge applied the correct legal test and reached a conclusion which fully reflected what little objective fact he could salvage from the tangled web of deceit which the parties had so enthusiastically weaved when giving their evidence.
And best of all he said he would ensure that the case file was sent to the DPP, no doubt in the hope of a prosecution for perjury.
If only more judges were prepared to say what they think!
The full judgment is here - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2018/1258.html