Perjury in domestic violence cases

When you say that details in the affidavit have been "changed" — are there two versions of the affidavit, containing inconsistent details?

I wouldn't get hung up on trying to prove that somebody perjured themselves here. Perjury is very difficult to prove and family law proceedings are not the place in which to prove it. With perjury, the focus is on the knowledge and intent of the person making the false statement, and proving what somebody's state of mind was is difficult.

The important thing here is to show the court that the affidavit is not reliable. You do not need to go into whether the reason for this is dishonesty, or malice, or just mistaken recollection, or people persuading themselves of what they want to believe; that is not important.

So, yeah, by all means introduce evidence of what actually happened on the night out, and show that the affidavit presents a skewed, highly-coloured and not unreliable picture. Just avoid the word perjury, and avoid accusing anybody of dishonesty. It's not relevant to the issue before the court. Plus, it makes you seem like the dispassionate, fair, reliable person; if you're trying to make the focus what a terrible person your ex is, you look just as angry as your ex does.

No, I'm saying the opposite. The respondent can challenge what the applicant says and respondents frequently do. You just don't have to characterise it as "perjury" in order to challenge it, and it's probably wiser not to. Call it "perjury" puts the focus on the intentions of the applicant, which aren't relevant and are hard to prove, rather than the factuality of the statement, which is relevant and is much easier to prove.

Yes, certainly. If someone gives evidence at a hearing which is at variance with their previous sworn statements, that can be pointed out and they can be cross-examined about that. And you could make submissions to the judge about how that should affect the weight to be placed on their evidence.

Seriously, stop asking this question. It's irrelevant whether they are perjuring themselves, and if you get hung up on that you will (a) get distracted from things that actually matter to the case, and (b) piss off the court, which does not want to waste time hearing arguments about questions that are not relevant to the issues it has to decide.

Whether somebody has perjured themselves matters when they are tried for perjury. That is not what is happening here. What matters here is whether their account is factual, reliable. You can certainly point to the fact that they have given two inconsistent accounts and use that to suggest that their evidence should not be relied on. Avoid entirely the question of whether the inconsistency is a result of mistake, dishonesty, malice, delusion or whatever. It doesn't matter to the issue before the court, and if you bang on about it you give the impression of someone who is trying to use the proceedings to wreak vengeance on your ex. You want to come across here as the sane, dependent, calm, rational person whose evidence is more reliable than the inconsistent accounts given by your ex.