R v Arnold
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
Date | 01 January 1839 |
Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 645
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Referred to, R v. Colpus & Boorman, [1917] 1 K B 574
regina v. arnold. (When a prisoner is willing to make a statement, it is the duty of magistrates to receive it : but magistrates before they do so, ought entirely to get rid of any impression that may have before been on the prisoner's mind, that the statement may be used for his own benefit , and the prisoner ought also to be told that what he thinks fit to say will be taken down, and may be used against him on his trial Nothing should be returned as a deposition, unless the prisoner had an opportunity of knowing what was said, and an opportunity of cross-examining the person making the deposition.) [Referred to, R v. Col-pus & Boorman, [1917] 1 K B 574 ] Housebreaking -The prisoner was indicted for breaking into the dwelling-house of Henry Stroud, and stealing five £5 notes and some plate. It appeared that the examination of one of the witnesses, which had been returned as a part of the depositions, had been taken after the prisoner had been committed, and in his absence. Lord Denmau, C. J.-That examination ought not to have been returned as one of the depositions. Nothing should be returned as a deposition against the prisoner, (622] unless the prisoner had an opportunity of knowing what was said, and an opportunity of cross-examining the person making the deposition (a) A statement of the prisoner made before the magistrate was given in evidence. Lord Denman, C. J., in summing up.-The frequent warnings given to prisoners, not to say anything that may...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R v Johnston
...P. C. 597. Rex v. EllisENR Ryan & Moody, 432. Baldry's caseENR 2 Den. C. C. 430. Stripp's caseENR 1 Dearsly, 649. The Queen v. ArnoldENR 8 C. & P. 621. 60 COMMON LAW REPORTS. H. T. 1864. Cris. Appeal COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. Jan. 23. April 13. M. J., suspec- THE following case was reserved......
-
R v William White Watts
...in accordance with the 11 & 12 Viet, c 42, s 17, and therefore inadmissible ; and the following authorities were cited, Regma v. Arnold (8 Car. & P. 621); Regma v. Johnson (2 Car. & K 394); Regma v. Christopher (1 Den. C C 536); and Caudle v. Seymour (1 Q B. 889). I admitted the deposition,......
-
R v John Sansome
...the prisoner's examination before the magistrate, it was the magistrate's duty to do away the effect of such inducement. (R. v. Arnold, 8 C. & P. 621, per Lord Denman) ; that stat. 7 Geo. IV. c. 64, which made the statement of the prisoner admissible on proof of the magistrate's signature, ......
-
The Privilege against Self-Incrimination from Early Origins to Judges' Rules: Challenging the ‘Orthodox View’
...made under oath. For more on this rule and its relationship to the right to silence, seebelow nn. 143–148 and accompanying text.133 (1838) 173 ER 645.134 Ibid.at 645–6, per Lord Denman CJ.135 See Maury, above n. 77 at 761.136 RvArnold (1838) 173 ER 645 at 645–6, per Lord Denman CJ, who refe......