My take reading between the lines.
So police interview independent witnesses and don't proceed. No case to answer.
The Hun ( which is part of the same organisation as the woman making the complaint works for) reports that the woman decides not to make a statement. Why? Because her statement, if the same as her previous statements, would be at odds with all the witnesses, therefore opening her up for criminal charges against her for perjury. As it stand Dusty may now have a case for defamation.
Perjury is lying to court, she would have no criminal case to answer for if she was found to be making the whole thing up. She may be vulnerable for defamation, but most likely it would br Ch7 or the Hun that Dusty would ultimately take $$ from.
SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1966 - SECT 53
Making false reports to police etc.
S. 53(1) amended by Nos 9554 s. 2(2)(Sch. 2 item 341), 9642 s. 2(1), 8/1998
s. 5(1), 43/2011 s. 52(1), 37/2014 s. 10(Sch. item 160.18).
(1) Any person who falsely and with knowledge of the falsity of the report voluntarily reports or causes to be reported to any police officer or to a protective services officer that an act has been done or an event has occurred, which act or event as so reported is such as calls for an investigation by a police officer or a protective services officer shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty: 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/soa1966189/s53.html
Thanks Penny. Was just going to post the same. In any case it is perjury if used in court.
Its not mate. Perjury is directly lying under oath to a court. A prosecutor may simply ask "are you willing to have your statement shown to the court" in which case, yes she could be convicted of perjury.
But as the current events that:
Martin was in the restaurant,
The unnamed woman was in the restaurant
There was an altercation between the two
She couldn't possibly be found guilty of making a false statement anyway.
