A former New South Wales Police officer has been charged with perjury over the evidence he gave at NRL player Jack de Belin's proceedings related to an alleged sexual assault in February 2020.
Detective Senior Constable Shawn Adams, who is 48 years old, has been charged with allegedly giving false evidence under oath amounting to perjury.
In 2021, the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the sexual assault charges against de Belin and his co-accused Callan Sinclair, following two District Court trials in Wollongong which resulted in hung juries.
The first trial, which occurred in November 2020, resulted in the jury failing to reach a verdict on any of the charges. The second trial, in 2021, resulted in de Belin and Sinclair being found not guilty of one count of sexual assault, with the jury unable to reach a verdict on the remaining four charges.
The matter was initially listed for trial in February 2020, however, the co-accused's application for the proceedings to be permanently stayed meant that the trial had to be vacated.
A permanent stay is a 'last resort' and results in proceedings being forever halted – operating as a continuing immunity from prosecution in relation to the offences.
During the application, the officer in charge of the matter, then Detective Senior Constable Adams gave evidence. This is where it is alleged that Adams committed perjury.
Whilst Judge Haesler SC refused the application, he noted that Adams "lied to the court" during his evidence and acted with "reckless disregard for the legal professional privilege of De Belin" during the investigation in which the co-accused's phones were seized with privileged information accessed.
De Belin, who continues to play for St George Illawarra, and Sinclair were accused of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old woman, following meeting her at a nightclub in December 2018.
The trio had travelled from the club to de Belin's cousin's apartment in North Wollongong, with the complainant leaving with de Belin and Sinclair after dancing with them, and kissing Sinclair.
De Belin and Sinclair both maintained their innocence throughout the proceedings.
New South Wales Police stated in a media release that the former detective was charged after extensive investigation into the case heard in February 2020.
In 2021, officers attached to Professional Standards Command commenced 'Strike Force Ephemeris' to investigate the conduct of officers involved in the court case.
Following this investigation, and subsequent advice from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Adams was charged with giving false evidence under oath amounting to perjury.
The matter is first listed on 19 June 2024 at Wollongong Local Court. Adams no longer works in the police force.
In NSW, perjury is criminalised under Part 7 of Division 4 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
The elements of the offence that the prosecution must prove, are essentially that:
- The accused has made a false statement (oral or written) under oath or affirmation,
- This statement made in, or in connection with, any judicial proceeding,
- The statement concerns any matter which is material to the proceeding, and
- The accused made the statement knowing it to be false or not believing it to be true.
A statement will be considered to have been made in connection with a judicial proceeding whether or not a judicial proceeding has commenced, or ever commences, in connection with it.
The maximum penalty applicable is imprisonment for 10 years, as per section 327.
This offence is classified as an indictable 'table 1' offence which means that it will be dealt with summarily in the Local Court unless the prosecution or the defendant elects to take it to the District Court.
In the Local Court, the maximum penalty applicable is instead limited to 2 years imprisonment and/or an $11,000 fine, for a single offence.
However, where the offence is committed with further intent to procure a 'guilty' or 'not guilty' finding of any person of any serious indictable offence (one which is punishable by a term of 5 years imprisonment or more) the maximum penalty is instead`14 years' imprisonment, as per section 328.
This offence is classified as 'strictly indictable' which means that it will proceed to the District Court.
There are restrictions on the prosecution of perjury, with a person unable to be prosecuted unless it is:
- by the Director of Public Prosecutions ('DPP'),
- at the direction of the Attorney General, or
- by any other person with leave of the judicial officer who constituted the judicial tribunal before which the perjury is alleged to have been committed
However, the police are still responsible for investigations of perjury. Following this, the matter will be referred to the DPP, who then determine whether or not the offence is to be prosecuted.
As outlined, the Attorney General does retain a power to direct a prosecution for perjury.
However, this is only employed in very exceptional circumstances, such as if an DPP employee were accused of perjury. Notably, after the introduction of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW), decisions to commence a prosecution have always been made by the DPP.
Possible defences to perjury can include where you honestly believed the statement to be true rather than false, where you did not understand the question posed, or where the statement was not actually connected or 'material' to a judicial proceeding.
There is also an offence of 'false statement on oath not amounting to perjury' under section 330.
It provides that a person who makes on oath any false statement knowing the statement to be false or not believing it to be true, if it is not perjury, faces a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
This offence is different to the offence of perjury, as the prosecution is not required to prove that the statement was made in connection with judicial proceedings nor material to those proceedings.
Where a person is accused of perjury and the jury is not satisfied that the accused is guilty of perjury but is satisfied on the evidence that the accused is guilty of making a 'false statement on oath not amounting to perjury', it may instead find them not guilty of perjury but guilty of the latter offence.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.