Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | W. H. D. Winder |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6403700209 |
| Date | 01 February 1964 |
| Published date | 01 February 1964 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
W.
H.
D.
WINIltR,
M.A.,
LL.M.
Legal Correspondent
of
THE
POLICE JOURNAL
RE(;ENT
JUDI(;IAL
DE(;ISIONS
TAKING FINGERPRINTS: NO CAUTION NEEDED
Callis v. Gunn
In this case in which the justices had wrongly refused to admit
fingerprint evidence which had been obtained by the police the
Divisional
Court
said that the case was not concerned in any way
with answers to the police or statements made by a defendant.
"That
being so ", said the Lord Chief Justice in his judgment
allowing the prosecutor's appeal,
"the
Judges' Rules in regard to
the giving of a caution do not apply at all. As a matter of law the
evidence of fingerprints, if relevant, and it clearly was relevant there,
is admissible subject to the overriding discretion of the
court"
(1963)
3W.L.R. 931).
The defendant, when at a police station on a charge of stealing,
declined to make any statement, saying that he wished to have either
his solicitor or an officer from his unit present before he did so.
A detective constable, who had not obtained an order from the
magistrates' court to have the defendant's fingerprints taken, before
taking them said:
"I
want your fingerprints. All
right?"
and the
defendant replied "
Yes".
He was not cautioned that he could
refuse to have them taken and that his fingerprints might be used
in evidence if he did give them. Although the detective constable
said that he asked his question in such a manner that areasonable
man would have understood that he could object to have his finger-
prints taken, the justices found that there had been no clear indica-
tion to the defendant that he had the right to refuse. He gave his
fingerprints and raised no objection thereto.
The justices held that the evidence of the fingerprints was not
admissible on the ground that the defendant ought to have been
cautioned that he need not give them unless he wished to do so and
thatthey could be used in evidence
ifhe
did give them. In the absence
of such evidence the prosecution could not raise a prima facie
case against the defendant and the justices dismissed the information.
The Divisional Court, on the prosecutor's appeal, sent the case back
to the justices with a direction that the evidence was admissible.
It
is true that in every criminal case a Judge has a discretion to
disallow evidence, even if in law relevant and therefore admissible,
if admissibility would operate unfairly against a defendant. Lord
Parker, CiL, said
that"
in considering whether admissibility would
operate unfairly against a defendant one would certainly consider
whether it had been obtained in an oppressive manner by force or
against the wishes
of
an accused
person".
This is the general
February1964 73
To continue reading
Request your trial