Is there any sanction on people making unsuccessful personal injuries claims?

[Brendan Burgess]

There have been a few cases in courts recently which the judge rejected

'You're lying through your teeth' - couple's €60k taxi injury claims hit dead end

Mr English, who appeared for Allianz Insurance, told Ms Lawrence before she left the witness box that he would present proof she was not even in a taxi in which she claimed she had been injured, along with her husband.


While cross-examining her evidence about her claim, Mr English told her she was "lying through her teeth" about previous accidents she allegedly could not remember.


"You have no idea to what extent Allianz Insurance, on behalf of its insured, has gone to in order to defend these proceedings and reject the lies you are spinning," Mr English told her.


"You have not been telling one word of the truth since you got into that witness box."


When Judge Quinn said he had heard enough, Mr English said there were numerous other claims involving people associated with these and other proceedings, and he would produce garda evidence that would state she was not in the taxi.

Woman's claim over bus crash with 'dumb American' dismissed

On the balance of probabilities and the evidence, [the judge] did not accept her injury was due to the incident because of engineering and other evidence indicating the bus, weighing a minimum 20 tonnes, did not move forward as a result of the impact with the car, weighing a maximum 1.7 tonnes.

The insurance companies get orders for costs against the claimants, but I presume that they have no chance of recovering them.

So the ordinary drivers pay for these claims through higher car insurance.

Brendan

 

[odyssey06]

Is perjury not a crime anymore? Or making a false statement?

I see a complete mismatch between the language from the government on this and actual action.

 

[Setanta12]

While the "no foal, no fee" approach is, I think, outlawed - I suspect it still carries on. Those on lesser incomes are more willing to take cases, as their lawyers know they cannot get blood-from-a-stone (if they were to even try) and the middle-classes (the 'muddling-along' classes) often must suck it up as if a case went against them, lawyers would look to be paid.

I hope I'm wrong .. ..

 

[T McGibney]

Is perjury not a crime anymore? Or making a false statement?

I'm told that the Irish legal code lacks any effective sanction against perjury. That's why, unlike the UK, you never ever see people going to jail for it. Others can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[odyssey06]

I'm told that the Irish legal code lacks any effective sanction against perjury. That's why, unlike the UK, you never ever see people going to jail for it. Others can correct me if I'm wrong.

That's a pretty pathetic state of affairs if true. It would not surprise me.

 

[DirectDevil]

The problem of perjury is the classical one of proof of the offence. You are probably better off seeking to charge the "witness" in question with fraud type offence(s) if that can be established on the evidence.

The problem about judges in civil courts remarking from the bench that X is an outright liar is that is has utterly no effect in terms of criminal sanctions.
An assertion of this type from the bench is not a finding of criminality against the individual.
It may well be a finding of fact which a trial judge is certainly entitled to make where they are the finder of fact i.e. sitting without a jury as is mostly the case.

A problem with witnesses in civil actions is that their evidence may be established to be factually wrong. It does not follow automatically that such witnesses have actually lied. Their evidence, although given honestly, may be deemed to be unreliable or not preferable when juxtaposed with that of other witnesses. Those observations are not always code for "liar".

Orders for costs are of no practical value in most cases. If you are going to be a brass necked liar - as the plaintiff - you are untouchable financially if you are up to your neck in debt as the costs order just joins the queue of your creditors. The only thing that would cramp a plaintiff with an order for costs against them is to register a judgment mortgage against their property. I sometimes wonder if insurers might not be a touch more aggressive with those against whom they have costs orders even going to the point of bankrupting individuals to encourage les autres to give it up before they start a fraud !

Don't forget that the plaintiff is not the only one who can lie. If he can get accomplices to swear up suitably but falsely you will not be getting an order for costs against such witnesses. From a criminal perspective such witnesses could be looking at fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud type offences.

Finally, yes, Brendan the liability for unrecovered costs does indeed rebound on those who insure and that does not refer to motor insurance alone. I suspect that this is why some insurance companies go for nuisance settlements much to the surprise and fury of some of their clients i.e. pay €3,000 to avoid the costs of going to trial and ending up with a favourable verdict but a bill of unrecoverable defence costs greater than €3,000. Grrrrr............

 

[T McGibney]

The problem of perjury is the classical one of proof of the offence.

Most perjury cases are open-and-shut cases of lying under oath. The British courts have jailed politicians among others for so doing. The Irish courts take a more leisurely approach and feign surprise when the lower orders draw conclusions from that.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Hi Devil

Thanks for that comprehensive explanation.

The problem about judges in civil courts remarking from the bench that X is an outright liar is that is has utterly no effect in terms of criminal sanctions.

Have I not seen it reported occasionally that the judge has referred the case to the DPP or the Gardaí?

Could the law be changed so that the judge hearing the case could make a finding of perjury?

Brendan

 

[noproblem]

An awful lot of people today say they have no religion, no God, no belief, etc and i'd imagine that putting their hand on a bible and swearing to tell the truth is a laugh to them. Can they not simply say the exercise means nothing to them or similar? Like everything else in life nowadays is it even proper to use religion as a type of criteria in a court of law anymore?

 

[RedOnion]

Could the law be changed so that the judge hearing the case could make a finding of perjury?

There is no statutory offense of perjury in Ireland, so that's the first law that needs to change - it currently has to be tried under common law.
It comes up every few years, usually in the context of false / exaggerated claims, but for some reason it never seems to get very far.

 

[Bronte]

The problem is not perjury. It's the no foal no fee is the problem. And the Law Society will do nothing about this. Personal injuries is the most lucrative work. Half the drivers in Ireland have had payouts for non existant whiplash if you ask me. Not only is their lying going on but fake accidents, and fake injuries too. It's a really easy way to get big money for nothing. Loads of these cases in court all the time, the one's making the headlines are because they've taken it to the extreme lying end where a judge has to throw it out.

 

[ashambles]

While no win no fee does encourage these claims, it isn't the primary problem. Also if you could effectively ban it, it's possible many of the same cases would just use free legal aid anyway.

There's a handful of cases like the following in the UK, it must cut down on fraudulent claims to some extent.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/12-month-sentence-for-utterly-false-whiplash-claim/5057591.article

Here the worst outcome is some minor ridicule which won't bother someone who's got to neck to try the fraud in the first place.

 

[T McGibney]

We need a law on perjury.

We also need a law to penalise professionals who "aid or abet" fraudulent damages claims, on the same lines as the one that nails professionals who "aid or abet" fraudulent tax returns.

Banning no foal no fee wouldn't work. It would be the easiest thing in the world to issue a fee invoice to someone while telling them that you have no intention of collecting it from them, and then later writing it off as a bad debt.

 

[DirectDevil]

Hi Devil

Thanks for that comprehensive explanation.

Have I not seen it reported occasionally that the judge has referred the case to the DPP or the Gardaí?

Could the law be changed so that the judge hearing the case could make a finding of perjury?

Brendan

The trial judge can seek to have the matter referred to the DPP. Ultimately, after investigation by the Gardai, it is the DPP who will decide what to do with the matter.

A judge hearing the civil action making a finding of perjury would be problematical. The proceedings are a civil case with it's attendant rules of evidence, procedures, standard of proof and so on. To make a finding of perjury you would probably need a separate criminal trial with it's relevant rules and protections for the accused.

Even if a judge was given the authority to make a finding of perjury the "accused" would probably be entitled to ask the judge to recuse himself on grounds of objective bias and demand a trial in front of another judge as well as a jury. You can't win

 

[DirectDevil]

An awful lot of people today say they have no religion, no God, no belief, etc and i'd imagine that putting their hand on a bible and swearing to tell the truth is a laugh to them. Can they not simply say the exercise means nothing to them or similar? Like everything else in life nowadays is it even proper to use religion as a type of criteria in a court of law anymore?

You're probably right there.

If you are a practising atheist you can opt to make an affirmation instead of the traditional oath sworn on a bible. Either way, whether you believe or not, what is relevant is that the witness is giving a formal legal undertaking to the court to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is equally binding whether the witness is being examined, cross-examined or even questioned by the judge.

My inner cynic has real trouble with the middle bit - the whole truth - as skilled sophists can be very effective liars by virtue of what they omit or forget to say.

 

[elcato]

In all fairness, everyone who is convicted and pleaded not guilty would need to be done for perjury if they take the stand.

 

[T McGibney]

In all fairness, everyone who is convicted and pleaded not guilty would need to be done for perjury if they take the stand.

That's not how it works. There is a massive difference.

 

[DirectDevil]

In all fairness, everyone who is convicted and pleaded not guilty would need to be done for perjury if they take the stand.

No.

There is a difference between perjury and evidence that is not accepted or believed.

Perjury is the act of deliberately uttering false evidence.

Evidence that is not accepted or believed may have been given in absolute good faith even though it may be shown to be wrong when judged against the full weight of all of the evidence.

 

[elcato]

There is a difference between perjury and evidence that is not accepted or believed.

Perjury is the act of deliberately uttering false evidence.

Evidence that is not accepted or believed may have been given in absolute good faith even though it may be shown to be wrong when judged against the full weight of all of the evidence.

In some cases maybe. Go down the courts and listen to the defense being given by people which are blatant lies. They are under oath, therefor they are perjuring themselves.

 

[T McGibney]

In some cases maybe. Go down the courts and listen to the defense being given by people which are blatant lies. They are under oath, therefor they are perjuring themselves.

Doesn't that in itself suggest we need to tighten up our perjury laws as other jurisdictions have successfully done?