R v Hallett and Six Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 1036
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Attornies-Fleetwood & Whalley.
[748] regina v hallett and Six others (If in a case of rape the jury are satisfied that non-resistance on the part of the prosecutrix proceeded merely from her being overpowered by actual force, or from her not being able from want of strength to resist any longer, or that from the number of persons attacking her she considered resistance dangerous and absolutely useless, the jury ought to convict the prisoner of the capital charge ; but if they think from the whole of the circumstances that, although when the prosecutrix was first laid hold of it was against her will, yet that she did not resist afterwards because she in some degree consented to what was afterwards done to her, they ought to acquit the prisoners of the capital charge, and convict them of an assault only. A witness at the trial gave evidence which was different from her deposition before the magistrate The deposition was signed by a mark, which she denied to be hers. Neither the magistrate nor his elerk were at the trial; but a constable proved that he was at the examination, and heard her deposition read over to her, and saw her with a pen in her hand, but did not see her make her mark He also proved the magistrate's signature, and after reading the deposition (which preceded his own which he had signed) he stated that he believed, that that was the deposition which was read over to the witness :-Held, that this deposition might be read to the witness by the officer of the Court for the Judge to examine her upon it ) Rape.-The prisoners were indicted for haying feloniously ravished Mary Maiden. It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix, that on the night of the 22nd of November ske was at a public house at Wolverhampton, at which the prisoners 9 DAB.* P. H REGINA V. HALLETT 1037 and another person, who was not in custody, were, and that these eight persons fallowed her to the door of her lodgings, which was fastened on the inside, when the eight persons held her with her back against the door, all of them committing the offence one afte? the other. The prosecutrix admitted that she had been on the town since fche time of the alleged offence, but denied that she had been so before, though she admitted that that was not the first time of her having had intercourse with the other sex. To confirm the evidence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v C. O'R
...she yielded through fear of death or through duress, it is rape. 1 Hawk. C. 41, s. 6; R v Jones, 4 L. T. (O. S.) 154: cf. R. v Hallett, 9 C. & P. 748: R. v. Rudland, 4 F. & F. 495. If the connection took place when she was in a state of insensibility from liquor, having been made drunk by t......
-
R v Olugboja
...some close or near relative. She relied in support of that submission on a number of cases going back to the middle of the last century: R. v. Hallett (1841) 9 C. & P. 748; R. v. Day (1841) 9 C. & P. 722; R. v. Wright (1866) 4 F. & F. 967; R. v. Mayers (1872) 12 Cox 311; and by analogy Latt......
-
41 NLR 534
...with the custody of the record of the case will suffice for this purpose. From a perusal of the English cases of Regina v. Hallett [173 E.R. 1036. ]; Regina v. Riley and another [176 E.R. 868.]; Regina v. Wright [176 E.R.869.]; and Regina v. Hearn [174 E.R. 431.], it would appear that Engli......