Employment Tribunals & Perjury

[becky2585]

If those lies were corrected, would it have made any difference to the overall outcome?

[rightsforme]

Hello everyone can anybody clarify if there is anything I can do ,my former manager lied under oath in the employment tribunal ,not once but twice . She did this despite me having evidence and witnesses to back this up , the tribunal hearing ruled in the companys (name edited) favour because the lies she told we're what I had notified head office about in confidence and they had shared the information with the management involved . The lie she told was she denied verbally threatening myself and two others with dismissal for raising the issue of another manager bullying members of staff . She also denied that the company discussed an out of court settlement despite me having the email evidence . Can anyone advise me in what if anything I can do about this ??? I can't afford to go back to the solicitor it's already cost me nearly £5k but need this injustice to be resolved .

 

From my research it depends on whether the lies told would indicate a contravention of article 6 rights to justice. I have been researching a lot on this as I am assisting a friend with taking a case to higher courts as the lies in that case are referred to in judgement as factual findings which amounts to perjury and perverting the courts of justice and brings the justice system into disrepute which has additionally led to a miscarriage of justice and is error of the ET for substituting its own version for that of the respondents as the findings are not supported by factual evidence and misapplying law etc

 

I suggest that you carry out some research on your own case, identify the relevant law and procedures that the ET had to apply by reading the legislation to be applied and tribunal rules and procedures in full as well as practise directions. Additionally read the criteria of the lead cases which have to be followed such as burchell if its unfair dismissal and research and read cases with similar to find case law. You can find the transcript of cases on the tribunal services site, Bailii, Biall or by various other sites. Make sure to research well check that the case is the most valid and has not been overuled by a later case.

 

Then go through the judgement and reasons and see if you can identify either legal errors, perversity or apearance of or actual bias.

 

Hope this might help. It is a hard job and I wish you good luck and hope that you can find somthing that might aid you to obtain justice.

[zeppelin63]

How did your friend get on in the Higher Courts, on what grounds did they challenge the perjury please?

[Ethel Street]

How did your friend get on in the Higher Courts, on what grounds did they challenge the perjury please?

 

The post is nearly 5 years old and the poster hasn't been back CAG since 2014 so I doubt you will get an answer.

[rightsforme]

Hi

Despite identifying the relevant laws which prove that laws, procedures and bias has taken place in this case and the judgement contravenes Article 6 rights to justice and the judgement is illegal, the courts refuse so far to look at the evidence in this case and Justice has been denied showing just how corrupt our legal system is.

 

However I am determined to continue and will not stop till Justice is both done and seen to be done.

At the present I cannot say too much as I am looking for a legal professional that would be both able and willing to take on this case as the denial of justice has further escalated this case to the rule of law being ignored by our justice system leading to a further contravention of human rights.

 

This is not easy an easy task as we do not have the finances to pay for the services of a qualified and capable professional in this field, we therefore need to obtain volunteers that are willing to help us work on this together for free that have knowledge, experience, qualifications, ability and some time spare that are passionate about obtaining Equality In a Justice system that currently ignores the rule of law causing illegal judgements and miscarriages in justice for many without sufficient finances to challenge.

Edited May 20, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[steampowered]

Without knowing the details of the case, the only advice I can give you is that you shouldn't let this consume your life.

 

Everyone in the legal system (judges, lawyers, CAB advisers) mostly do their best, but the system is not perfect and people do not get it right all of the time. There is also a lot of subjectivity in these cases: what feels like unfair dismissal to you, might not be unfair dismissal to somebody else.

 

There does come a point where it is better to accept things as they are and move on with your life than to let a dispute prey on your mind for years and years. Once you've been through a tribunal/court process they can sleep knowing you've done all you reasonably could to stand up for yourself even if you don't get the outcome you want.

[sgtbush]

Article 6 is not a right to justice.

Its the right of a fair trial.

There is a big difference.

You've had a court appearance in a timely manner, youve been able to cross examine witnesses, the court acted in an independent way.

Just because you couldn't prove a witness is lying does not contravene article 6.

Courts are all about what you can prove, not what you think.

 

That's why I think your struggling to get a lawyer to pick up on the case

[sangie5952]

Article 6 is not a right to justice.

Its the right of a fair trial.

There is a big difference.

You've had a court appearance in a timely manner, youve been able to cross examine witnesses, the court acted in an independent way.

Just because you couldn't prove a witness is lying does not contravene article 6.

Courts are all about what you can prove, not what you think.

 

That's why I think your struggling to get a lawyer to pick up on the case

 

I agree. To my knowledge, I can think of only one instance where a tribunal was convinced enough to refer an employer to criminal prosecution for perjury. The evidential bar is too high. There are many reasons why there are different "sides" to a story, and perjury is not about whether someone says something that isn't true - it is about "willfully" saying something untrue or misrepresenting something willfully. That goes to INTENT. Intent is something that is rarely able to be evidenced. I may genuinely believe something that is untrue. I may genuinely think something happened in a particular way, but actually be misrepresenting the facts. How does a court prove that I am doing so willfully, instead of genuinely believing something? They can't. Hence, perjury is not about telling a lie, but willfully telling a lie - saying something that is an untruth is not, in itself, lying. Not legally.

 

The only time that I recall a case of perjury being advised by a tribunal was when there was concrete evidence of intent - a forgery committed by the employer, which could be proven to be a forgery.

 

That is why, in law, the judges tend to refer to people being credible or not credible - they don't come out and say someone is lying!

 

In reality, what most people fail to recognise is that tribunals are not about justice. They are about law. In most cases, if you loose your tribunal, then the judge(s) have found your case either not consistent with the law, or not credible, or not proven. It's an unpalatable truth for many people, but it's still a fact - something being unfair isn't remotely the same thing as being unlawful.

[zeppelin63]

I was totally ignored by a Judge when I told him that the other side had just committed perjury. My evidence was the wording of a rule and the company’s own contingency plans, this manager knew this information was the truth because he dealt with these rules on a daily basis, yet his witness statement which he read out went totally against the rules and contingency plans. He went on to make 30 lies of which I had evidence to back up my claim that this individual wilfully lied. My only problem was that I was up against an “establishment” not one individual. In the eyes of this a Judge they passed the Burchell Test, yet not once in the investigation report was anything mentioned regarding the charges laid against me, it was all made up as they went along.

[sgtbush]

And you didn't cross examine????

Your fault. That does not contravene article 6.

 

In a court or tribunal you use the term credible.

[zeppelin63]

I did cross examine and was totally ignored.