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

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.

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.

And you didn't cross examine????

Your fault. That does not contravene article 6.

In a court or tribunal you use the term credible.

I did cross examine and was totally ignored.