The Assizes
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835101500302 |
| Published date | 01 July 1951 |
| Date | 01 July 1951 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Assizes
ADMISSIBILITY
OF
WIFE'S
EVIDENCE
AGAINST
HER
HUSBAND
R. v. Yeo
T
HE
case of R. v. Yeo (1951, 1
All
E.R.
864) before
Gorman J.
at
Manchester Assizes illustrates
the
limitations on
the
competence of a husband or wife
to
give
evidence against
the
other. The general principle of
the
Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, is
that
the
husband or wife
of
the
accused person shall not be called as a witness except
upon
the
application of
the
person charged. There are two
classes of exceptions
to
this general rule. The first class
comprises cases in which
the
husband or wife of
the
person
charged
may
be called as a witness either for
the
prose-
cution or defence
and
without
the
consent of
the
person
charged. These cases are specified in
that
and
subsequent
Acts -and cover, for example, bigamy, certain sexual
offences,
and
desertion under
the
Vagrancy Act. The
second class comprises cases in which
the
spouse is a
compellable witness against
the
accused person. A few
specialised
statutory
offences fall within this class
but
the
more
important
cases are common law exceptions to
the
general rule, namely, treason, forcible abduction
and
marriage,'
and
cases of personal injury or violence com-
mitted
by
one spouse against
the
other.
In
R. v. Yeo
the
husband was charged with maliciously
sending
to
his wife "knowing
the
contents thereof, aletter
or writing, threatening to murder her", contrary to section
16 of
the
Offences against
the
Person Act, 1861. The
question was
the
competence of
the
wife as a witness for
the
prosecution. Gorman J. ruled
that
the
evidence of
the
wife was
not
admissible. The wife could not be called
as a witness under section 4 of
the
Criminal Evidence Act,
1898,because
section 16 of
the
Act of 1861 was
not
an
enactment mentioned in
the
schedule
to
the
Act of 1898.
•18
To continue reading
Request your trial