(delivering the judgment of the Court): The appellant gave false testimony at the murder trial of Karthigesu who was convicted and sentenced to death. That case rested on the appellant's testimony which provided the main link in the largely circumstantial evidence tendered by the prosecution. The conviction and sentence were set aside by this court when the appellant confessed on oath that he had told lies at that murder trial. He was duly charged and convicted of 'giving false evidence with intent to procure Karthigesu's conviction of a capital offence' under section 194 of the Penal Code. That particular offence carries a maximum sentence of 20 years and a fine. The learned judge imposed a sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

It is now said before us that that sentence was wrong; that it was harsh and manifestly excessive. Therefore this court should interfere because every wrong sentence is as much a miscarriage of justice as a wrongful conviction or acquittal.

In our view to give false testimony in a capital case is a very serious thing to do because it can jeopardise the life of the accused. It is for that reason that the Penal Code has provided a separate section to deal with the matter. The learned judge has dealt with it, we think, admirably and incisively in these terms:

"Witnesses giving evidence in court must never underrate the importance of speaking the truth… True testimony alone will assist the court in arriving at a true verdict. It is most important therefore that people who appear as witnesses in court should never deviate from the truth for otherwise they would be polluting the administration of justice and thus committing a serious wrong to the court and society."

In another passage of his judgment he said this:

"… the offence of judicial perjury which the accused has committed is of such a grave nature involving the risk of human life that public interest must outweigh the plea of mitigation…"

It cannot be gainsaid that the appellant had shown a wanton disregard for truth. The sanctity of an oath meant nothing to him. We therefore conclude that he had acted with malice and with the direct object of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Is the sentence harsh and manifestly excessive? We would paraphrase it in this way. As this is an appeal against the exercise by the learned judge of a discretion vested in him, is the sentence so far outside the normal discretionary limits as to enable this court to say that its imposition must have involved an error of law of some description? I have had occasion to say elsewhere, that the very concept of judicial discretion involves a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred. That is quite inevitable. Human nature being what it is, different judges applying the same principles at the same time in the same country to similar facts may sometimes reach different conclusions (see Jamieson v Jamieson [1952] AC 525, 549). It is for that reason that some very conscientious judges have thought it their duty to visit particular crimes with exemplary sentences; whilst others equally conscientious have thought it their duty to view the same crimes with leniency. Therefore sentences do vary in apparently similar circumstances with the habit of mind of the particular judge. It is for that reason also that this court has said it again and again that it will not normally interfere with sentences, and the possibility or even the probability, that another court would have imposed a different sentence is not sufficient, per se, to warrant this court's interference.

For a discretionary judgment of this kind to be reversed by this court, it must be shown to our satisfaction that the learned judge was embarking on some unauthorised or extraneous or irrelevant exercise of discretion. We are far from convinced that any criticism of