Peter Thompson QC questions the reasoning behind recent changes to the statement of truth
One of the great principles underpinning the rule of law is that those giving evidence or making submissions to a court of law should not make statements of fact that they know to be untrue. The administration of justice cannot work without it. Children are taught from an early age that they have a moral duty not to tell lies and although cynicism may set in later the duty to tell the truth continues to be generally recognised.
Cautionary words
We ought, therefore, to welcome the change to statements of truth with effect from 6 April, when every statement of truth has to include the extra words, ‘I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth’. (See NLJ ‘Civil way’,
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
