Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 April 1955 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5502800203 |
| Published date | 01 April 1955 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
90
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
regard to the admissions
of
confessions in evidence. The rule is that
aconfession can only be admitted if it is voluntary,
and
therefore
one obtained by threats or promises held
out
by a person in
authority
is not to be admitted.
Reference may be usefulIy made to one or two previous decisions
which directly or indirectly bear on the principle now so clearly
affirmed. In R. v. Leatham (1861, 8 Cox C.C.), an information for
penalties under the
Corrupt
Practices Act, objection was taken to
the production
of
aletter written by the defendant because its existence
only became known by answers which he had given to the commis-
sioners who held the inquiry under the Act, which provided
that
answers before
that
tribunal should
not
be admissible in evidence
against him.
It
was held
that
though his answers could
not
be used
against the defendant, yet if a clue was thereby given to other evidence,
in this case the letter, it was admissible. Mr. Justice
Crompton
said:
"It
matters
not
how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be ad-
missible."
Lloyd
v. Mostyn (1842, 10 M. &W. 478) was an action
on a bond. The person in whose possession it was objected to produce
it as evidence in court on the ground of privilege. The plaintiff's
solicitor, however,
had
a copy
of
it
and
notice to produce the original
being proved the
court
admitted the copy as secondary evidence.
There is no difference in principle for this purpose between a civil
and
acriminal case. No
doubt
in a criminal case the judge always
has a discretion to disallow evidence if the strict rules
of
admissibility
would operate unfairly against an accused.
Recent
Judicial
Decisions
SELF DEFENCE AND
CHARGE
OF
MURDER:
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
ON
PROSECUTION
Chan Kau v, The Queen
In cases where the evidence discloses on a charge
of
murder
a
possible defence of self defence the
burden
of
proof
remains
throughout
on the prosecution to establish
that
the accused is guilty
of
the crime
of
murder and the onus is never on the accused to establish this
defence any
more
than
it is for him to establish provocation or any
other
defence
apart
from
that
of
insanity, which is
not
strictly a
defence.
"It
is unfortunate", say the Judicial Committee
of
the
Privy Council in Chan Kau v. The Queen (1955, 2 W.L.R. 192),
"that
in Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence
and
Practice, 33rd ed.,
at page 942, a passage is
quoted
from the summing up in the case
of R. v. Smith (8 C. & P. 160) where, leading with self defence, these
To continue reading
Request your trial