Limitation of Time in Criminal Proceedings
| Published date | 01 April 1947 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4702000210 |
| Date | 01 April 1947 |
| Author | G. S. Wilkinson |
| Subject Matter | Article |
LIMITATION
OF
TIME
IN
CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS
141
and the Court is of the opinion that they would be most unduly
cramped if it were held that a writing, voluntarily made in the circum-
stances proved in this case, was inadmissible in evidence.
The
mere
fact that astatement was made in answer to a question
put
by a police
constable was not in itself sufficient to make it inadmissible in law.
It might be, and often was, a ground for the Judge to exclude the
evidence,
but
he should do so only if he thinks that the statement was
not voluntary in the sense which I have mentioned, or was an un-
guarded answer made in circumstances which rendered
it
untrust-
worthy, or made its admission against the prisoner unfair."
Although, apparently, a police officer cannot always be sure that
he is doing right in cautioning, or even doing wrong in not cautioning,
asuspect (police officers have been censured for both faults), one
thing is certain with regard to a person he has arrested or is about to
arrest. And that is that it is wrong to question such a
person"
touch-
ing the crime of which he is accused." All that he should do is tell the
accused the nature of the charge upon which he is being arrested,
caution him and leave him to say anything or nothing as he pleases.
And the only licence allowed seems to be where a person gives himself
up for a crime; and then he may be questioned sufficiently-and only
sufficiently-to elicit the facts, and even then the officer concerned
must show good reason for doing so.
Well known as the rules are for ensuring that astatement tendered
in evidence is admissible (and many of H.M. Judges have added their
views from time to time on this
important-to
a policeman, perhaps
his most
important-duty),
none of us who may have to produce a
voluntary statement we have taken can afford not to reflect on what the
late Mr. Justice Cave said (in the case R. v.
Thompson,
1893) of con-
fessions: "
To
be admissible a confession must be free and voluntary.
If
it
proceeds from remorse or a desire to make reparation for the
crime it is admissible; if
it
flows from hope or fear excited by a person
in authority,
it
is inadmissible."
Thus, if we ensure that the voluntary statement of an accused
person emanates only in accordance with this rule, our efforts will not
have been in vain.
Limitation of Time in Criminal
Proceedings
IN general there is no limitation as to the time within which criminal
proceedings are to be brought-nullum tempus
occurrit
regi-pro-
vided they are brought within a reasonable time of the discovery of
To continue reading
Request your trial