The Assizes
| Date | 01 January 1951 |
| Published date | 01 January 1951 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835101500103 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Assizes
IRREGULAR COMMITTAL BY EXAMINING
JUSTICE
:
EVIDENCE
OF TWO
DEFENDANTS
SEPARATELY
CHARGED
R. v. Sesay
and
R. v. Baiden
AT
the
Liverpool
Autumn
Assizes, two men,
John
Se5aY
and
Edwin
Victor Baiden, who
had
been separately
indicted, each for feloniously wounding
the
other
with
intent
to cause grievous bodily harm, were called on
together
by
Mr. Justice Lynskey. His Lordship
granted
each of
them
legal aid
and
informed counsel nominated
that
he intended to call on
the
accused
later
in
the
day.
In
the
meantime he desired counsel to consider, before
the
accused entered their plea, whether or
not
having regard
to
the
circumstances in which
the
committal proceedings
were conducted
the
accused could be said to have been
lawfully committed.
The facts of
the
case as given before
the
committing
Justice were
that
the
two accused were living in
the
same
house
and
during
the
course of a quarrel one
attacked
the
other with arazor
and
the
other, having obtained possession
of
the
razor,
attacked
him.
Each
of
the
accused was
charged
and
committed separately,
the
prosecution calling,
in addition to other witnesses, each accused to give evidence
against
the
other.
When
the
accused again came before Mr. Justice
Lynskey, counsel for
the
defence moved
that
the
indict-
ments be quashed on
the
ground
that
the
examining justice
in coming to a decision
to
commit
the
accused
had
im-
properly listened to
and
accepted evidence which
it
was
not
competent for
him
to hear, viz.,
the
evidence of
both
accused. During
the
course of
the
argument reference was
made to
the
case of Charlotte Winsor v. The Queen (1866
L.R.
1Q.B. 390) which came before
the
Court of Queen's
Bench on a
Writ
of
Error
and
also
the
case of R. v. Grant
(1944, 2
All
E.R.
3ll).
The
circumstances in
the
former
case, which, as was pointed
out
by Mr. Justice Lynskey,
'2
To continue reading
Request your trial