R v Arnold

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1839
Date01 January 1839
CourtHigh Court

English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 645

IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER

Regina
and
Arnold

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
3 cases
  • R v Johnston
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • April 13, 1864
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • Crown Court
    • January 1, 1863
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • Crown Court
    • January 1, 1850
    ...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, ......
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT