Food for Thought – Chef charged with Perjury

A renowned Canberra chef was sentenced back to gaol last month for laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars through his restaurant for an alleged drug dealer, as well as perjury and dishonesty charges.

James Mussillon, 51, was the former operator of restaurant, Courgette, pleaded guilty to five charges more than a year ago.

The Court heard that Mussillon lied in support of his co-accused in a bail application, repeating the false claim that he was a valued employee at the restaurant.

Mussillon was sentenced to three years and 11 months in prison, with the final two years and 11 months suspended.

Perjury is a criminal offence under s 327 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (‘the Act’).

Perjury involves knowingly making a false statement under oath in connection with any judicial proceeding. The false statement can be made in oral evidence or in writing. In New South Wales, perjury carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. However, if the false statement is made with intention to procure conviction or acquittal of any person of any serious indictable offence, the maximum penalty increases to 14 years.

The related charge of perverting the course of justice is governed by s 319 of the Act and also carries a maximum penalty of 14 years.

The offence of perjury occurs where:

1. A person makes a false statement under oath or affirmation,
2. The statement is in, or in connection with, judicial proceedings,
3. The statement concerns a matter that is material to those proceedings, and
4. The person who made the statement knows it was false or does not believe it was true.

Examples of perjury may include:

Falsely stating in Court that another person committed a crime,

1. Falsely providing an alibi in relation to proceedings, or
2. Swearing false evidence in an affidavit

Perjury is taken seriously by the Courts as a perjurious testimony is seen as posing a threat to the judicial system. A person charged with perjury could potentially argue in their defence that:

1. their statement was not made under oath or an affirmation;
2. they believed the statement they made was true; or
3. the statement did not concern a matter that was material to the proceedings.