PREVALENCE OF PERJURY

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 107, 21 September 1912, Page 2 (Supplement)

PREVALENCE OF PERJURY

EVERY DAY IN COURT LIFE,

Sydney, September 7. The frequency with which perjury is committed in the law courts was commented upon by Archbishop Kelly in an address yesterday. What was the use, he asked, of administering an oath in courts of justice, if the man who took it had not in his heart, the fear of God, and the certainty of God's judgment after death. It was a mockery and a snare. Those who sat on the Bench told them it was not justice that presided in their courts of law; they might have the best case in the world, but "by clever swearing they might be worsted. If anything could bring down discredit on a nation it was the prevalence of perjury. They might have every material prosperity they coveted; but if perjury prevailed they had already seen the highest point of their progressive development. They were deteriorating. What was the remedy? Who would be the physician? •vWell" (pointing to the priests'on the platform), "there are the physicians, and the churches. The priesthood speaks in the name of Christ, and if you hear us yon will have the spirit of 'faith, hope ancUcharity, and will observe the law of God; you will rather cut off your right hand than equivocate when vou are making a statement under the sanctity ox an oath. You will have the grace 'to face loss of property, to face anv earthly influence, rather than call upon God to help you in telling a lie. This is a clear case, and it will be to

.the public benefit to attend to what I have said."

Rather curiously, .judge Murray spoke from the Bench on the same subject the same afternoon. He said that every day, in every court, in every part of Australia, perjury was deliberately committed. It was only right for him to say that sometimes a mistake was made, but making all the allowance one possibly could from the point of view of a charitable interpretation of the actions of witnesses, there remained a terrible amount of real moral perjury that was inexplicable. The assumption was that deliberate untruths were stated with the object of helping a party to the ease, in furtherance of whose interests the evidence was called. When perjury was proved the" punishment need not be severe, but substantial and effective, so, that it would act as a deterrent to the' public, and that witnesses would keep religiously to the truth, from which they were constantly and deliberately departing.