[The Weeping Angel]

They're going to do a true crime drama about this on ITV, aren't they?

[davidjay]

Another reason may be that if chummy did get done for perjury and the jury didn't convict, he might have grounds for appealing his original conviction.

[Crabcakes]

A friend of mine lost his wife when they were rear-ended in their classic car and thrown into a ditch. The cunt who did this tried all the "prove I was there" shit and every time he came for trial, he played the mental health card.

In the end he got twelve years - the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is fourteen. Whether he got twelve years because it warranted it or the judge got fed up with it all, I'll never know. Even my mate's barrister was surprised at the severity of the sentence.

That’s awful. Obviously not there so no idea what happened in court, but having seen my fair share of arseholes online in comments on cycling-related news stories I would be willing to bet that whatever genius defence the driver thought he was putting forward by flipping between denial and then playing the victim card, he wasn’t even a tenth as convincing as he believed he was. Arrogant arseholes who think they can drive powerful cars with no issues tend to be arrogant about their abilities to persuade other people and convince them of their stories as well.

[Abernathy]

Another reason may be that if chummy did get done for perjury and the jury didn't convict, he might have grounds for appealing his original conviction.

Well, no. The perjury has -self-evidently- been committed de facto in the course of the accused's defence. And proven beyond doubt by the guilty verdict, so not required to be adjudicated on by the jury considering the original offence.

[Yug]

Abers' question got me thinking. Not being sure about it myself I did a bit of digging. Perjury refers specifically to witnesses and interpreters. The accused is, apparently, expected to be creative with the truth.