R v William Baldry

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1852
Date01 January 1852
CourtCrown Court

English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 568

Crown Cases

Regina
and
William Baldry

S C 21 L J M C 130, 19 L. T O. S. 146, 16 Jur 599; 16 J P 276; 5 Cox C. C 523. Referred to, R v Gillis, 1886, 11 Cox C C 69; R v Widdop, 1872, 21 W. R. 176; R. v Thompson, [1893] 2 Q. B 12; R v. Rose, 1898, 67 L J Q B 289; Ibrahim v. R., [1914] A. C. 599

[430] 1852. regina v. william baldry. (A police constable, who apprehended a man on a charge of murder, having told him the nature of the charge against him, said " he need not say any thing to criminate himself ò what he did say would be taken down, and used as evidence against him." The prisoner, thereupon, made a confession ò Held, that the confession was rightly admitted in evidence Note -Rex v Drciv, 8 Car & P. 140; Rex v Morton, 2 Moo & Rob 514 , Rey v Farley, 1 Cox, 76 ; and Req v. Harris, ib 10(5, are overruled ) [8 C 21 L J M. C 130 , 19 L. T 0. S. U6 , 16 Jur 599 ; 16 J P 276 ; 5 Cox C. G 523. Referred to, R v Gillis, 18GB, 11 Cox C C 69 ; R v Widdop, 1872, 21 W. R. 176 ; R. v Thompson, [1893] 2 Q. B 12 ; R v. Rose, 1898, 67 L J Q B 289 ; Ibrahim v. R., [1914] A. C. 599 ] At the Spring Assizes for the county of Suffolk, the prisoner was tried before Lord Campbell C J , upon an indictment charging him \\ith having administered poison to his wife with intent to murder her. On the part of the prosecution a police constable was called whose evidence thus began ; " I went to the prisoner's house on the 17th December I saw the prisoner. Dr. Vincent, and Page, another constable, were with me I told him what he was charged with. He made no reply, and sat with his face buned in his handkerchief I believe he was crying. I said he need not say anything to criminate himself, what he did say would be taken down and used as evidence against him." Objection was made on behalf of the prisoner that what he then said was not admissible The Lord Chief Justice thought that although the caution of the constable differed from that directed by 11 £ 12 Viet. c. 42, s. 18, to be given by the justice to the prisoner in the word " will " instead of " may," it did not amount to any promise or threat to induce the prisoner to confess ; that it could have no tendency to induce him to say anything untrue ; and that in spite of it if he did afterwards confess, the confession must be considered voluntary; his Lordship therefore allowed the witness to give in evidence what the prisoner then said, which amounted to a confession of his guilt. But as doubts had been entertained by learned Judges whether a confession, after aueh a caution, might [431] lawfully be given in evidence, his Lordship reserved the question for the Court of Criminal Appeal The prisoner was convicted, and sentence of death was passed upon him On the 24th April, A D 1852, this case was argued before Lord Campbell C J , Pollock C. B , Parke B , Erie J , and Williams J. H. Mills for the prisoner. It is proposed, on behalf of the prisoner, to substantiate the objection raised at the trial; and the question is, whether the words addressed by the constable to 2 DEN. 438 REGINA V. WILLIAM BALDRY 569 the prisoner held out to him the promise or assurance of any worldly advantage to himself, in regard to the charge, as the consequence of making a statement, or a threat of harm to himself as the consequence of refraining from doing so , if so, a confession made on the strength of these words, would be inadmissible in evidence. Lord Campbell C J -That is the question. Mills. If made in consequence of such an inducement, it may be a, false charge, made by the prisoner against himself, and unworthy of judicial notice [t is said in 2 Russell on Crimes, 826, that a confession, in order to be admissible, must be "" free and voluntary " ; that is, it must not be extracted by any sort of threat or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence. The ground on which it is supposed to be unworthy of credit is stated by Eyre C J , WanckshalVs case, 1 Leach, C. C. 263 There is another proposition also laid down in Russell " The law cannot measure the force of the influence used, or decide upon its effect upon the mind of the prisoner, and therefore, excludes the declaration if any degree of influence has been exerted " It is gathered from [432] this that if any inducement-of the slightest description - whereby any worldly advantage to himself as a consequence of making a statement, be held out to a prisoner, the law presumes the statement to be untrue Pollock C. B -You are overstating it. The law does not presume that it is untrue ; but rather that it is uncertain whether a statement so made is true Lord Campbell C. J -I doubt whether the rule excluding confessions made in consequence of an inducement held out, proceeds upon the presumption that the confession is untrue , bub rather that it would be dangerous to receive such evidence, and that for the due administration of justice it is better that it should be withdrawn from the consideration of the jury Mills. The law assumes that a man may falsely accuse himself upon the slightest inducement In Cass's case, 1 Leach, C C 293, note (a), a confession induced by saying, " I am in great distress about my irons ; if you will tell me where they are, I will be favourable to you," was held by Gould J to be inadmissible The slightest hope of mercy to induce a prisoner to disclose is enough to render the statement inadmissible ; Rex v Thomas, 6 Car & P 353, a case before Patteson J. So also in a case of murder before the same learned Judge, tihemngtoris case, 2 Lewm, C. C 123, where the words were " No doubt thou wil't be found guilty, it will be better for you if you will confess," the confession was excluded. In another case of murder, Rex v. Enoch and Mary Pulley, 5 Car & P 539, the words " You had better tell the truth, or it will he upon you and the man go free,'' were held to be such an inducement as excluded the confession Pollock C. B -There is no doubt as to the application of the rule m those cases, which are all familiar to the Judges and to the Bar. [433] Mills They are cited for the purpose of shewing how the whole law is imbued with the proposition that any inducement will exclude a confession. The law will not measure the force of the inducement; and the law supposes that there are circumstances in which a man will make a false accusation against himself In the ease of Reg v. Garner, 18 L J , N. C 1 ; 2 Car & K 920 , 1 Den C C 329, the words, " it will be better to speak the truth/' were held to operate in exclusion of the confession The law says, that if any person (being a person of authority), holds out any thing in the nature of an inducement to a prisoner, it will not permit what he has said under the influence of it, to be given in evidence In the case of Rex v. Parratt, 4 Car...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Poon Heong v PP
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • R v Santokh Singh
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • State v Gobin; State v Griffith
    • Guyana
    • Court of Appeal (Guyana)
    • 31 March 1976
  • R. v. Oickle (R.F.), 2000 SCC 38
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 29 September 2000
    ...263; 168 E.R. 234, refd to. [para. 141]. R. v. Hardy (1794), 24 State Tr. 199, refd to. [para. 141]. R. v. Baldry (1852), 2 Den. 430; 169 E.R. 568, refd to. [para. 141]. R. v. Guidice, [1964] W.A.R. 128 (Ct. Crim. App.), refd to. [para. 141]. R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • THE CONCEPT OF VOLUNTARINESS IN THE LAW OF CONFESSIONS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...Supra n 6. 13 Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, A Digest of the Law of Evidence (Macmillan and Co, Limited, 12thEd, 1936) at pp 195—197. 14 (1852) 2 Den 430; 169 ER 568 (“R v Baldry”). 15 [1893] 2 QB 12. 16 [1914] AC 599 at 609. Lord Hailsham of Marylebone in Director Public Prosecutions v Ping ......
  • In the Scottish Courts
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 33-1, January 1969
    • 1 January 1969
    ...English decisions without some shame,since "Justiceandcommon sense have too frequently been sacrificedatthe shrineofmercy" R. v.Baldry(1852) 2 Den. 430, 445).Itis,we think we may say, unlikelythatScots law will now take thiscourse.Another objection which was made to the taking of the state-......

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