R v Edward Coote
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 1873 |
| Date | 11 March 1873 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 17 E.R. 587
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, FOR THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC, CANADA.
Mews' Dig. tit. Colony, II. Particular Colonies, 4. British North America-Courts of Law-Depositions of Witnesses, III. Appeals to Privy Council, 3. Leave to Appeal; tit. Criminal Law, VI. Evidence, 1. Confessions and Admissions, c. 8. Privilege of Witnesses, a.; tit. Evidence, II. Presumptions, 7. As to other matters, VI. Examination of Witnesses, 4. Examination, 8. Privilege, b. Tendency to incriminate; tit. Justice of the Peace, D. Procedure Before, 4. Hearing; tit. Maxims, Ignorantia Juris Neminem Excusat-Nemo tenetur seipsem accusare. S.C. L.P. 4 P.C. 599; 42 L.J. P.C 45; 29 L.T. 111; 21 W.R. 553; 12 Cox. 557.
[463] ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, FOR THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC, CANADA. OUR SOVEREIGN LADY THE QUEEN,-Appellant; EDWARD COOTE,-Respondent * [March 11, 1873]. According to the English law, introduced into Lower Canada at the time of the cession of Canada to England in 1763, and unaffected by subsequent Canadian or Imperial Statutes, the depositions on oath of a Witness legally taken are admissible evidence against him, if he is subsequently tried on a criminal charge. The only exception is, in the case of answers to questions which he objected to when his evidence was taken as tending to criminate him, but which he has been improperly compelled to answer. A. was indicted for Felony. At the trial the Crown put in evidence depositions sworn to by him, without being cautioned that what he so deposed to might be given in evidence against him, before Fire Commissioners empowered * Present: Sir James William Colvile, Sir Barnes Peacock, The Lord Justice Mellish, Sir Montague Edward Smith, and Sir Robert Porrett Collier. 587 IX MOORE N.S., 464 REG. V. COOTE [1872-73] by the Quebec Statutes, 31st Viet. c. 31, and 32nd Viet. c. 29, to investigate the origin of any fires occurring in Quebec, and before any charge or accusation had been made against him. Held, that the depositions were properly admitted as evidence against the Prisoner at the Trial. Semble:-Chap. 77, s. 63, of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, giving the Court of Queen's Bench power to direct a new Trial, is repealed by the Canadian Statute, 32nd and 33rd Viet. c. 29, s. 80. On petition by the Attorney-General of the Province of Quebec, special leave to appeal granted from a judgment of the Queen's Bench, Quebec, on a case reserved in a Trial for Felony. In this case special leave to appeal was granted from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench of the Province of Quebec, Canada, on a case reserved for that Court by Mr. Justice Badgley, under the powers of the Consolidated Statutes of Lower Canada, [464] c. 77, ss. 57 and 58 (a) on a trial of the Respondent for Arson. The case so reserved by Mr. Justice Badgley was as follows: - " The Prisoner, Edward Coote, was indicted for Arson of a Warehouse in his occupation, and belonging to Alexander Roy. " The indictment contained four counts: The first, with intent to defraud the Scottish Provincial Insurance Company; second, to defraud the Royal Insurance Company; the third, to defraud generally; and the fourth, to injure generally. Upon his plea of [465] not guilty he was tried before the Court of Queen's Bench at the Criminal Term of the said Court, holden by me at Montreal, before a competent jury, empanelled in the usual manner, and after evidence adduced by the Crown and by the Prisoner, was found guilty, the jury returning a general verdict of guilty. " In the course of the adduction of the evidence for the Crown, two depositions made and sworn to by the Prisoner, with his signature subscribed to each, taken by the Fire Commissioners (b) at their investigation into the cause and origin of the fire at his Warehouse, before any charge or accusation against him or any other person had been made, were produced in evidence, and which, after having been duly proved, were submitted to the jury as evidence against him, after the objection previously made by the Prisoner to their production in evidence, and after his said objection had been overruled; after the conviction of the Prisoner, and before sentence was pronounced by me thereon, he moved the Court by two motions filed in Court in the terms following." (a) By the Consolidated Statutes of Lower Canada, c. 77, s. 57, it is provided, that when any person has been convicted of any Felony at any Criminal Term of the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court before which the case has been tried may in its discretion reserve any question of law which has arisen on the trial for the consideration of the Court of Queen's Bench on the appeal side thereof, and may thereupon postpone the judgment until such question has been considered and decided by the said Court of Queen's Bench. By sect. 58, the said Court shall thereupon, state in a Case, to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People (Attorney General) v Gilbert
...not a voluntary statement, and that evidence of that statement should not have been admitted in evidence at the trial. R. v. CooteELR (1873) L.R. 4 P.C. 599 distinguished. The People (Attorney Generalv. CumminsIR [1972] I.R. 312 considered. 2 That the conviction must be quashed as the other......
-
Magmoed v Janse van Rensburg and Others
...the belief that most persons are aware of their rights in this regard and where they are not ignorantia juris non excusat (see R v Coote (1873) 17 ER 587 (PC) ((1873) LR 4 PC 599) at 592). This reasoning has E lost much of its force in this country since the decision of this Court in S v De......
-
Magmoed v Janse van Rensburg and Others
...the belief that most persons are aware of their rights in this regard and where they are not ignorantia juris non excusat (see R v Coote (1873) 17 ER 587 (PC) ((1873) LR 4 PC 599) at 592). This reasoning has lost much of its force in this country since the decision of this Court in D S v De......
-
DPP v Casey
...under Article 50 of the Constitution, is the principle that ignorance of the law cannot provide a defence to lawbreaking; R v Coote (1872) LR 4 PC 599. Traditionally, the justifications for this rule are that a plea of ignorance as an excuse is an encouragement to others to act similarly an......