The Police and the Law
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4702000202 |
| Date | 01 April 1947 |
| Published date | 01 April 1947 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Police
and
the
Law
THE
JUDGES'
RULES AND STATEMENTS BY
CO-PRISONERS
THE Judges' Rules, which is the familiar description of the memo-
randum approved by His Majesty's Judges of the King's Bench
Division on statements by persons suspected of crime or by prisoners
in police custody, have not very frequently been actually interpreted
by the higher courts.
The
memorandum, so far as it has been approved
by the Court of Criminal Appeal or the High Court, has legal effect
and
it
can be assumed that the courts would uphold also those parts
which have not yet come up for judicial sanction in the shape of a
definite precedent. But some of the rules are capable of more than one
interpretation, and their application to the circumstances of a particular
case is not always free from doubt.
The
recent ruling of the Court of
Criminal Appeal in connection with Rule 8 is, therefore, of particular
importance.
This
ruling was given by the Lord Chief Justice sitting
with Mr. Justice Humphreys and Mr. Justice Lewis in the case of
R. v. Mills &Lemon (1946,2
All
E.R. 776).
Rule 8 is concerned with the procedure to be observed when two
or more persons are charged and statements are taken from both or all
of them.
The
Rule is as follows: When two or more persons are
charged with the same offence and statements are taken separately
from the persons charged, the Police should not read these statements
to the other persons charged,
but
each of such persons should be
furnished by the Police with a copy of such statements, and nothing
should be said or done by the Police to invite a reply.
If
the person
charged desires to make a statement in reply, the usual caution should
be administered.
In R. v. Mills &Lemon the two appellants were charged with
robbery, and the officer in charge of a police station told them both
what W, aU.S. soldier who was with
them
at the robbery, said; his
statement implicated them both.
They
were then asked if they wished
to make a reply and they proceeded to make a full confession of the
part which they had taken in the affair. At the trial, the Recorder found
as a fact that there was no threat or inducement on the part of the
Police
but
there was the question whether the prisoners wished to make
a reply. It was clearly pointed out by the Court that the Police had not
observed Rule 8, which had been laid down for their guidance. Never-
theless, in spite of the non-observance of the Rule, it was also held that
the confession was admissible in evidence against the appellants.
The
reason for this, at first sight, unexpected conclusion of the Court was
that the confessions themselves were intelligible without evidence
86
To continue reading
Request your trial