Lawson v Lawson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND,LORD JUSTICE HODSON,LORD JUSTICE VAISEY,THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J1028-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 28 October 1954 |
[1954] EWCA Civ J1028-1
In the Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Goddard)
Lord Justice Hodson and
Lord Justice Vaisey.
Mr. J. JACKSON (instructed by Messrs. Craigen, Hicks & Co., Agents for Messrs. Patrick Bennett, Maddison & Wainwright, Newcastle-on-Tyne) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Husband.
Mr. M. R. ELLISON (instructed by Messrs. Donald Harvey & Co., South Shields) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Wife.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Divisional Court, the President and Mr. Justice Barnard, to whom the Appellant, who had been the Respondent in the Court below and before the Magistrates, appealed against the jurisdiction of the Magistrates, who found that he had been guilty of persistent cruelty to his wife.
It was one of these peculiarly disgusting and horrible cases, in which the cruelty alleged was sodomy, the woman's case being that her husband insisted on buggering her on, I think, at least three occasions, on one of which it hurt her so much that she said she was unable to walk for some days.
She also alleged that he also insisted on her masturbating him. This is a minor point, but I attach rather more importance to it, perhaps, than the President did on one particular point. As I say, she also alleged that he insisted on her masturbating him, which shows, of course, if it was true, that he was a man who was given to filthy practices with his wife. The importance I attach to that is that, in my opinion, the statement which the man made in front of the Police Constable could amount to corroboration of that matter, and I think did, which, at any rate, would tend to show, in my opinion, that the wife's evidence was true. If you can show that the wife has given evidence on three or four matters and, at any rate, one of those matters is corroborated, I think it does lead the tribunal of fact to come to the conclusion that she was a truthful witness.
I will go at once to the reasons which the Magistrates gave for their decision. They said: "The reasons for our decision in this case were: 1. That on the evidence given before us, it was proved that the Defendant (a) In April, 1953 and June 1953 committed sodomy upon the Complainant against her wish. (b) On many occasions tried to force theComplainant to submit to sodomy up to and including November 1953." So there are two findings on sodomy; one finding that sodomy had been committed, and another finding that sodomy had been attempted on several occasions.
"On Wednesday the 25th November 1953 insisted upon the Complainant masturbating him against her wish. 2. That the Complainant had not consented to the acts of sodomy committed upon her, or to being a party to the act of masturbation." That, as I understand it, means that although the wife submitted to it, she was not a consenting party to it. Although she submitted to what was done, she submitted to it against her wishes or against her will.
"3. That the Complainant's evidence that after the second act of sodomy upon her, the Defendant told her if she bought Vaseline it would not hurt so much was true, and rejected the Defendant's explanation that the Vaseline was for some other purpose, as untrue. 4. That the Complainant's statement made in the presence of Police Officer Whittaker 'Look what you made me do on Wednesday night before I went to my mother's' and the Defendant's reply 'that is personal between us' referred to the act of masturbation insisted upon by the Defendant on Wednesday the 25th November 1953, and not to a discussion about money as stated by the Defendant. 5. That the Defendant had offered to buy two single beds if the Complainant would return to him. 6. That on Saturday 28th November 1953 the day the Complainant left the matrimonial home, the Defendant tried to pull her upstairs. 7. That the Complainant's distressed and nervous condition was the outcome of the Defendant's conduct towards her."
Then they say: "In coming to our decision we considered the question of corroboration raised by the Defendant's Solicitor, and being advised of the desirability but notabsolute necessity of corroboration, and having considered the evidence of the parties, we accepted the Complainant's evidence as true, and further that paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 set out above corroborated her allegations."
Now, the Divisional Court made a very careful analysis of the evidence in this case; so careful and full that it is quite unnecessary for me to go again through the evidence. Both Judges came to the conclusion that the Justices were quite justified, on the evidence, in preferring the evidence of the woman to the evidence of the man, and came to the conclusion that she had made out her case. There was a difference of opinion between the two Judges as to whether these acts amounted to corroboration. In my opinion, it is not necessary for this Court to consider the matter of corroboration, for this reason. These cases are not cases in which corroboration is required as a matter of law. It is required as a matter of precaution, and a jury will always be directed, if it is a trial on an indictment, in cases of this sort, that whether the person is to be regarded as an accomplice or not, it would be undesirable or dangerous to convict upon the evidence of the person alone, but that it is open to the jury, if they are satisfied with the evidence, to convict.
The question of corroboration very often comes up. It comes up in three different ways. First of all, it arises where you have got the unworn evidence of a child. Although you may take the unworn evidence of a child in certain cases, if a man is being tried for an offence against the child, there can be no case to go to the jury unless the evidence is corroborated. Then, of course, it is for the Judge to say whether there is any evidence that can amount to corroboration, and it is for the Jury to say whether they are satisfied with the evidence that is tendered as corroboration. That is the first case.
The second case where this question of corroboration arises is where the witness whose evidence it is said should be corroborated is an accomplice. An accomplice is a person who, in a matter of crime or in a matter of this description, is a consenting party or a participant in the crime. In that case, a jury is always directed that it is unsafe to convict upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice; but there again, if the jury are satisfied that the evidence of the accomplice has established the case and if they feel that they can, without doubt, trust that evidence, it is within their province to convict, and they do convict quite often.
The third case is the ordinary sexual case, where the woman complains of an indecent assault or a rape. It has been the practice of Judges for very many years to warn juries that they should be reluctant to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the woman, because it is so easy to make a charge of that description and so extremely difficult/to repel.
Therefore, it really comes to this, that, in substance, the warning given to a jury is the same whether you are warning a jury about the evidence of an accomplice or whether you are warning a jury about the evidence of a woman in a sexual case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T v T
...aspect of acquiescence, which in my view is vital in these cases, does not seem to have been considered by the justices at all." 39 Lawson v. Lawson , 1955, 1 All England Reports, 341, was also in this Court, and was a case in which the Justices found that the wife had not consented to th......
-
Crooks v Crooks
...Brown (1898) 79 L.T. 102. Corroboration of the petitioner's evidence, though not required as an absolute rule of law, is desirable. See Lawson v. Lawson [1955] 1 All E.R. 341. 23 The husband has failed to discharge the burden of proof placed upon him in proving the wife's desertion for the ......