Winking at perjury
Sir: If I might be permitted to add a note to Dorothy Becker's admirable and important article (March 24), it is unfortunately the case that the right of an ordinary member of the public to initiate a prosecution under the Perjury Act is only a theoretical safeguard. The reason for this is that nothing can happen unless a magistrate grants a summons and this can be — and is — refused, without any reason stated, even though the evidence presented may be overwhelming (far more than is required by the Act which only requires " reasonable ground" for supposing an offence had been committed).
In the notorious Enahoro case of a few years ago, the then Home Secretary testified on oath that his representative in Nigeria had ascertained that Chief Enahoro would be able to have "counsel of his choice " if extradited from this country to face trial in Lagos. On the strength of this testimony the
High Court refused the Chief's plea for habeas corpus and extradited him. A storm blew up when "counsel of his choice" (Dingle Foot QC) was refused permission to land and then Mr Brooke admitted in the House that he had been told clearly before he testified that this would happen.
Although evidence of this clearly blatant offence was presented to the Bow Street magistrate by eminent counsel, a summons was refused and that was the end of the matter.
L. E. Weidberg
14 Templewood Avenue, London NW3
Previous page
