Perverting the Course of Justice and Perjury Lawyers

How our perverting the course of justice solicitors can help

At Edmonds Marshall McMahon, our perjury and perverting the course of justice solicitors act for businesses and individuals who have been affected by dishonest conduct in civil, family, commercial and criminal proceedings. Drawing on our nationally recognised expertise in private prosecutions, we help clients pursue those who obstruct justice where the public authorities are unable or unwilling to act.

These cases often involve complex factual and evidential issues, requiring a careful assessment of the circumstances and the available evidence. We provide strategic legal advice from the outset, carefully assessing the available evidence and advising clients on whether a criminal offence has been committed and if a private prosecution is the most appropriate course of action.

Does lying in civil court proceedings constitute a criminal offence?

Yes. In sufficiently serious circumstances, deliberately false conduct during civil proceedings can constitute a criminal offence.

Depending on precisely what occurred, relevant offences may include:

• Perjury – where a person lawfully sworn as a witness in judicial proceedings wilfully makes a statement material to those proceedings which they know to be false or do not believe to be true.
• Perverting the course of justice – where a person intentionally performs an act or course of conduct which has a tendency to pervert the course of public justice.
• Fraud – where dishonest conduct, such as making a false representation or abusing a position of trust, is intended to make a gain or cause a loss.
• Forgery or the use of false instruments – where a person creates, alters or uses a false document or instrument with the intention that it be accepted as genuine and relied upon.
• Other offences arising from the particular evidence or conduct involved.

Our experience in perverting the course of justice prosecutions

Edmonds Marshall McMahon has conducted a number of the country’s most important private prosecutions in which dishonest conduct within existing legal proceedings formed an important part of the criminal case. Some of those cases are set out below:

R v Solaman Pradhan – false adverse possession proceedings

In R v Solaman Pradhan, EMM brought a private prosecution arising from a dispute concerning ownership of land.

Mr Pradhan asserted that he had acquired land by adverse possession and advanced his position through the Land Registry and subsequent civil proceedings. The prosecution concerned dishonest representations made in support of that claim.

He was convicted of fraud and perverting the course of justice and was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court to nine months’ imprisonment. The Sunday Times reported on the case congratulating EMM on this important conviction.

This case demonstrates that conduct beginning as an apparent civil property dispute can, where the evidence establishes deliberate criminal dishonesty directed at the judicial process, give rise to a criminal prosecution. This can be the case even where the Police have declined to investigate.

R v Girish Patel (2023) – forged will used in High Court proceedings

In R v Girish Patel, our perjury lawyers acted in a private prosecution concerning a sophisticated attempt to obtain control of substantial family assets.

The defendant had forged his mother’s will and relied upon that document in High Court proceedings concerning an estate valued at approximately US$50 million.

In addition to the underlying fraud and forgery offences, he was sentenced for perverting the course of justice for bringing the High Court claim on the basis of a will he knew to be forged and for perjury arising from false evidence he gave during those proceedings. He received an overall sentence of five and a half years’ imprisonment.

The case was reported widely and is a clear example of the importance of the criminal law where a litigant deliberately attempts to use civil proceedings and false evidence as a mechanism for achieving a dishonest result.

R v Ariana Rose (2026) – fraudulent County Court proceedings

In R v Ariana Rose, EMM brought a private prosecution on behalf of a property administrator.

Among significant other offending, Rose pursued a fraudulent County Court claim against her landlord for expenses which she falsely asserted she had incurred following her eviction.

She pleaded guilty to offences including fraud, use of a false instrument and perverting the course of justice. She was sentenced in July 2026 to five years’ imprisonment, alongside offences prosecuted separately by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The case attracted widespread national attention, and was reported on widely by The Times and the BBC, and led to a BBC podcast.

R v Troy Wood – fabricated allegations and false evidence

EMM’s perverting the course of justice solicitors represented Provident Personal Credit in proceedings against Troy Wood, who had committed fraud and theft while working as a loans agent.

After his offending was discovered, Wood fabricated allegations of blackmail and kidnapping, created false social-media accounts and damaged his own vehicle in an attempt to substantiate his account.

His conduct resulted in an innocent person being arrested and substantial police resources being deployed. Wood ultimately admitted fabricating the allegations and was convicted of perverting the course of justice, alongside the underlying fraud and theft offences. He received an overall sentence of four years’ imprisonment.

This case demonstrates that perverting the course of justice extends beyond statements made in court. Fabricating allegations or evidence intended to divert a police investigation can also constitute the offence.

What if the police or CPS have declined to prosecute?

Sadly, in many cases where there are ongoing or historic civil proceedings, this can lead to a decision by the police not to investigate further, or by the Crown Prosecution Service not to bring proceedings. That does not necessarily mean that no criminal offence has occurred.

This was illustrated by the case of R v Pradhan, as prosecuted by EMM, in which the Met said:

“The CPS advised that this matter had been heard in the civil courts, and subsequently decided that there was no realistic prospect of conviction. Pradhan was later convicted following EMM’s private prosecution and sentenced to an immediate period of imprisonment.”

In England and Wales, the right to bring a private prosecution is preserved by section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

A private prosecution nevertheless carries the same fundamental responsibilities as a public prosecution. Prosecutors must act fairly, objectively and in accordance with the applicable evidential, disclosure and public-interest obligations.

EMM can assess the available material and advise whether further investigation is required before any prosecution is contemplated. That may include obtaining documents, tracing witnesses, analysing financial material, reviewing digital evidence or instructing appropriate experts.

False documents used in court proceedings

Cases involving false evidence frequently involve documents rather than oral lies alone.

Examples include:

• forged wills;
• fabricated contracts or agreements;
• false invoices or receipts;
• altered bank documents;
• fabricated emails or correspondence;
• false tenancy documentation;
• manufactured contemporaneous records;
• false property documents; and
• documents created retrospectively and presented as genuine.

Using a deliberately false document in judicial proceedings may potentially give rise to several criminal offences.

The precise charge will depend upon how the document was created, how it was used, what the defendant knew and what result they intended to achieve.

EMM’s experience includes prosecuting cases where allegedly genuine documents used in civil proceedings were shown by the evidence to have been forged or fabricated.

Perverting the Course of Justice FAQs