Taking the Oath
We will consider over the next few weeks various aspects of the law of evidence, and some common popular misconceptions. However the first thing to consider is actually what happens when the witness is sworn.
This is important for a number of reasons. The starting point is that evidence given in the course of the case whether on oath or by affirmation (explained below) is subject to the law of perjury as sworn evidence. Therefore deliberately false evidence can lead to criminal charges and possibly imprisonment.
In addition one of the purposes of swearing a witness in is to impress upon the witness the solemn nature of that which they are about to engage in, and the importance of telling the truth. This is the original basis of having people swear upon a book that they consider to be holy.
This of course is something of a challenge in a multicultural society. If you go into a court room you will see first of all that a number of holy books are available. There is also a booklet which includes two things. Firstly various forms of applicable oath or affirmation, and secondly a guide in respect of different religions as regards how and in what circumstances the oath would be taken.
For example if swearing on oath a Muslim would swear on the Koran. That would normally be kept covered as a mark of respect and so one will see various holy books at court which are actually kept within a covering. Different books and forms of oath are required for all sorts of different religions: not merely Christian and Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh, but Buddhist and others. The standard booklet for the swearing of oaths also has an entry for Rastafarians.
A number of things have to be considered to ensure that the witness is comfortable with the act being undertaken. For example, one matter specified in the booklet is that some Roman Catholics may not wish to swear on a "Church of England" Bible.
Various religions will require certain purification acts to be undertaken before swearing (washing of hands being typical, possibly also feet). Others have rules regarding the positioning of the holy book on swearing, others the circumstances in which it is possible to swear (for example whether there is an issue about menstruating women being able to take the oath on the holy book).
Some people of course have no religion and in no circumstances would prefer not to swear upon a Bible or whatever. Others even if religious may prefer not to swear. Therefore witnesses have the option to affirm instead. The wording is different, but the effect is the same. It still amounts to sworn evidence. It is still subject to the sanction of a perjury charge if deliberately false evidence is given.
One point for example raised in the guidebook within the court is that, by way of illustration, some Orthodox Jews will refuse to swear on the old Testament for fear that an inadvertantly wrong answer will be detrimental to them in a religious sense.
The aim is that some form of solemn ceremony should precede the giving of evidence. That should be one which is appropriate to and does not conflict with the beliefs of the witness. The giving of evidence is a crucial part of the system of justice. Giving false evidence is both morally wrong and can have very serious consequences not just for the person giving the evidence , but obviously for those who are subject to the proceedings. Choosing a form of ceremony which insofar as is possible will mean something to each and every witness is an important part of the justice system.