An aspect of the law that I don’t quite understand was highlighted again in the recent court case involving the Coronation Street actor Michael Levell. Mr Levell was subsequently acquitted, so the jury decided he was telling the truth.
By the same token, the person making the allegation against Mr Levell must have been considered to be telling lies. Why then, is the party adjudged to be telling lies while under oath not then charged with perjury?
Robert Hayter, Chantry Court, Devizes.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here