The Admissibility of Evidence Showing ‘System’
| Author | W. Maitland Walker |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X3701000304 |
| Published date | 01 July 1937 |
| Date | 01 July 1937 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Admissibility
of
Evidence showing
'System'
By W. MAITLAND WALKER,
B.A.,
LL.B.,
M.e.
Barrister-at-Law,
Western
Circuit
THIS
subject involves the consideration of an exception
to the ordinary principles governing the admissibility
of evidence. It will, therefore, be convenient to state the
principles first and show the logic of the exception afterwards.
In
my treatment of the subject, I shall endeavour to use
ordinary language and to avoid the extremes of technicality
as much as possible.
The
two main principles involved are (I) that nothing
may be given in evidence which does not tend to prove or
disprove a matter in issue; (2) that the prosecution must
prove that the prisoner committed the crime with which he
is charged and cannot do so by showing, from his earlier
history or other hitherto unproved crimes, that he is a person
who is likely to have committed it.
That
is to say that the
prosecution are precluded from showing that the prisoner
has a general disposition to commit crimes of the character
of that with which he is charged. As an instance, I may say
that where a man is charged with buggery of
'A'
the
prosecution cannot give in evidence that he has confessed to
the buggery of ' B ' on the same or some other occasion.
R. v.
Cole,
1Phil!. Cr.,
181
This
second principle is carried to its logical conclusion
in the case of a man who is charged with assaulting a constable
who is arresting him on a charge of loitering with intent to
commit a felony.
The
prosecution cannot
put
in the prisoner's
record to show that the constable had reasonable grounds
for his suspicion.
To continue reading
Request your trial