Perverting the Course of Justice Charges
Clear advice on penalties, defences and what to expect after a charge of perverting the course of justice.
Perverting the course of justice is created by section 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and is deliberately drafted in broad terms — it criminalises any act or omission done with the intention of obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating the course of justice. In practice, this covers a wide range of conduct: giving false information to police, providing a false alibi for someone else, persuading a witness to change their evidence or not attend court, destroying or concealing evidence, or falsely claiming to have been the driver of a vehicle to protect the real driver from a traffic charge. Because the offence is defined so widely, conduct that might feel like simply being unhelpful or evasive can become a serious criminal charge if it was done with that specific purpose.
The offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment where dealt with on indictment in the District Court, reflecting how seriously the law treats interference with the administration of justice itself, separate from whatever underlying offence the conduct was intended to conceal. It is common for a person to be charged with perverting the course of justice in addition to, or sometimes instead of, the original matter — for example, someone who told police a friend was driving when they were not may face this charge regardless of how the original traffic matter is ultimately resolved.
A central element in every prosecution under section 319 is intent — the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted, or failed to act, specifically to defeat or obstruct the course of justice, not merely that their conduct happened to have that effect. This distinguishes the offence from related but separate provisions such as fabricating false evidence under section 317 or concealing a serious indictable offence under section 316, and means that conduct driven by panic, embarrassment or poor judgement, without that specific intent, may not meet the threshold required.
Penalties
What you could be facing
| Penalty | Maximum | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Perverting the course of justice (s319 Crimes Act 1900) — dealt with summarily | 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine | Applies where the Local Court retains jurisdiction over a less serious example of the offence, rather than the full indictable maximum available in the District Court. |
| Perverting the course of justice (s319) — indictable, District Court | 14 years imprisonment | The maximum penalty under the Act, generally reserved for more serious or sustained interference with an active investigation or court proceeding. |
| Concealing a serious indictable offence (s316 Crimes Act 1900) | 2 years imprisonment (5 years if a benefit was obtained for concealment) | A related but distinct offence, sometimes charged as an alternative where the conduct amounts to non-disclosure rather than active interference with an investigation. |
| Aggravating factors | Sentence increased within the applicable maximum | Interference with witnesses or jurors, conduct affecting proceedings already underway, and any degree of planning or sophistication are all treated as aggravating features at sentencing. |
Possible Defences
Ways this charge can be challenged
No specific intent to pervert the course of justice
The offence requires proof that the accused acted, or omitted to act, with the specific intention of obstructing or defeating the course of justice. Conduct driven by panic, embarrassment or poor judgement, without that particular intent, may not satisfy this element even where it had some effect on an investigation.
No tendency to pervert the course of justice
Where the act or statement in question was trivial, immaterial to the investigation or proceeding, or was corrected before it had any real effect, it may be argued that the conduct never had the capacity to actually interfere with the course of justice as required.
Duress
Where a person acted only because of genuine threats to their safety or that of someone else, duress can be raised as a defence in the same way it applies to other criminal charges, provided the response was proportionate to the threat.
Honest and reasonable mistake of fact
Where a person genuinely and reasonably believed the information they provided was true at the time, this can undermine the prosecution’s ability to prove the intent required for the offence.
What Happens Next
The Local Court process
- 01
These charges typically arise once police identify, during an existing investigation, that a person has given false information, tampered with evidence or otherwise interfered with proceedings, and a further brief of evidence is prepared specifically addressing this conduct.
- 02
The matter is first listed for mention. Because section 319 is dealt with as a Table offence, this stage involves confirming whether it will proceed summarily in the Local Court or be dealt with on indictment in the District Court.
- 03
Where the matter proceeds summarily, a plea of guilty or not guilty is entered in the Local Court, with a not guilty plea leading to a defended hearing before a Magistrate.
- 04
Where the matter proceeds on indictment, it follows the usual committal process before arraignment and either a trial before a judge and jury or a sentencing hearing before a judge alone.
- 05
At any hearing or trial, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt both the relevant act or omission and the specific intent to pervert the course of justice, and the defence can challenge either element or raise an available defence such as duress.
- 06
If convicted, or on a guilty plea, sentencing considers the seriousness of the interference, its actual or potential effect on the underlying proceeding, and the accused’s personal circumstances and prior record.
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions
Yes. Falsely nominating another person as the driver to protect them, or yourself, from a traffic charge is one of the most common examples of perverting the course of justice prosecuted in NSW, and can result in a separate and often more serious charge than the original traffic matter.
Yes. It is common for a person to face a perverting the course of justice charge in addition to, or sometimes instead of, whatever underlying offence their conduct was intended to conceal, and the two are dealt with as separate charges by the court.
Section 319 generally involves some active act or omission intended to obstruct or defeat justice, while concealing a serious indictable offence under section 316 involves failing to report knowledge of certain serious offences. Prosecutors will charge whichever provision best fits the specific conduct alleged.
No. The prosecution must prove the act or statement had a tendency to pervert the course of justice and was done with that intent — it does not need to be shown that the statement actually succeeded in changing the outcome of the investigation or proceeding.
Yes. Approaching a witness and asking them to alter their evidence, withdraw a statement, or not attend court can amount to perverting the course of justice where it is done with the intention of obstructing the proceeding, regardless of whether the witness agrees to do so.
It can be available for less serious, isolated examples of the offence, particularly involving a first-time offender and strong supporting material, but courts generally treat interference with the administration of justice as a serious matter, making this a harder outcome to secure than for many other offences.
Related Offences
You may also be looking for
Going to court?
Speak with our team today for a free first conference and clear, fixed-fee advice on your matter.
Call 0414 444 474