Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 October 1944 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4401700403 |
| Published date | 01 October 1944 |
| Subject Matter | Recent Judicial Decisions |
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
249
The
judgment of the Court in
R.
v, Goodwin concludes with this
observation:
"The
Court would add, without making any general
observation about this section, that they think that the Police and those
who have to deal with these matters, including Courts of Justice,
would do well to remember that, if the facts of a case are such that a
man may equally be charged with two offences, one of which involves
proof to the jury that he is of bad character, and the other requires no
such proof, it is always desirable that the latter should be selected as
the charge to be made against him. Once a jury know that a man is
given to committing aparticular class of crime, it must be extremely
difficult for them to treat him in the same fair and impartial way as
they would if they knew nothing whatever about him."
The
prosecuting authorities may set against this point of view
the firm policy adopted by Parliament in
1871
of attempting to prevent
crime by submitting the old offender to exceptional rules. But an
impartial jury must always be a high desideratum.
The
difficulty is
that under section 7 the essential previous conviction is alleged in the
indictment which is read over to the jury.
If
this information were
withheld from the jury they would have a completely open mind.
It
would seem to be of no importance that they 'should realise that the
conduct alleged of the accused would be criminal in the case only of
a former offender.
There
is an instance of withholding certain parts of
an indictment until after verdict in the case of a charge' of being a
habitual criminal.
If
this analogy were applied to section 7 of the
. Prevention of Crimes Act the danger of prejudicing the jury would
disappear.
Recent Judicial Decisions
DIRECTION
TO JURY ON ALTERNATIVE CHARGES OF STEALING AND
RECEIVING
R. v. Lincoln
"
IT
is not the business of the trial judge to decide whether of two
alternative verdicts one or the other is the more appropriate in
a case. His duty is to leave to the
jury
everything in the indictment
on which there is evidence to go to the jury. He may, of course,
point out to the jury what his own view is of the matter,
but
he must
leave it to the jury, and direct the
jury
on the law relating to every
count in the indictment on which he is leaving it to them, as he is
bound to, to find a verdict." Mr. Justice Humphreys made these
To continue reading
Request your trial