Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 July 1964 |
| Author | W. H. D. Winder |
| Published date | 01 July 1964 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6403700710 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
W.
H.
D.
WINDER,
M.A.,
LL.M.
Legal Correspondent
of
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
CRIMINAL RECORDS OF CO-DEFENDANTS
R. v. Stannard
A person charged and called as a witness " shall not be asked,
and if asked shall not be required to answer, any question tending
to show that he has committed or been convicted
of
or been charged
with any offence other than that wherewith he is then charged, or is
of bad
character".
This well-known principle is thus stated in s. I
(I)
of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898. The case of R. v. Stannard
[1964] 1 All E.R. 34, was concerned with the exception to this
principle which exists when the
accused"
has given evidence against
any other person charged with the same offence".
It
is not clear
from the words of the Act itself what
"against"
means in this
connexion.
The appellant and his two co-defendants were tried on an indict-
ment charging a conspiracy to receive cars knowing them to be
stolen. In his evidence-in-chief and in reply to questions put to him
by the trial Judge the appellant gave evidence which appeared to
incriminate the other two.
It
was not a case at all in which he
"turned King's evidence" in the sense of expressly and intentionally
helping the prosecution. Counsel for the co-defendants were per-
mitted to cross-examine the appellant in respect of a previous
conviction on the grounds that his evidence tended to incriminate
his co-defendants. All three defendants were convicted and the
appellant's appeal was dismissed.
It
was ruled by the Court of Criminal Appeal that adefendant
has " given evidence
against"
aco-defendant if the evidence, or
any part of it, undermines the co-defendant's defence or tends to
establish the prosecution's case. The Act does not permit a defen-
dant to make good a claim to retain his immunity on the ground
that he was asserting only what was necessary for his own defence.
The Court said that it is not the defendant's motive but the effect of
the evidence upon the co-defendant that matters. In the circumstances
the appellant had given evidence against his co-defendants so as to
render himself vulnerable to the effect of s. 1
(I)
(iii) and the cross-
examination was rightly admitted. At the same time the Court said
July 1964 338
To continue reading
Request your trial