Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:45:37.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Evidence of Co-Prisoners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

R. N. Gooderson
Get access

Extract

A co-prisoner has never been a competent prosecution witness, save in four exceptional cases:— (i) after a nolle prosequi; (ii) after a plea of guilty; (iii) after an acquittal; (iv) after severance of the trials. Even in the four exceptional cases, it is the practice for the judge to warn the jury against convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the co-prisoner, if they hold him to be an accomplice. As a defence witness, a prisoner was before the Act of 1898 competent for the defence of a co-prisoner only in the four exceptional cases, but it seems never to have been doubted since the Act that he is competent in all cases. Whether the evidence of the prisoner as a defence witness is evidence against a co-prisoner is a difficult question, but, although there are conflicting authorities, the better view, both in principle and upon authority, seems to be that today a prisoner is a competent defence witness against a co-prisoner in all cases, but the jury should be given the accomplice warning, if they hold him to be an accomplice.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , July 1952 , pp. 209 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 61 & 62 Vict. c. 36.

2 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 114, s. 1.

3 Stephen, , History of the Criminal Law, I, 424Google Scholar; R. v. Barnard (1758). Attempts to cross-examine by prisoners were usually pitiable, though for the trial of a barrister, later a judge, indicated for committing a murder while on circuit, who successfully performed the difficult roles of cross-examiner, witness, and advocate, and also contrived to soothe an irritable judge, see R.v. Cowper (1699) 13 St.Tr. 1105.

4 Stephen, op. cit., I, 440. Russell on Crime, 8th ed. (1923), 1836.

5 S. 1 (h); R. v. Pope (1902) 18 T.L.R. 717.

6 2 Atk. 228, 229; 26 E.R. 541, 542.

7 4 St.Tr. (N.S.) 935, 1026–31.

8 For other grounds on which a nolle prosequi may be entered, see Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 32nd ed., 109.

9 Car. & M. Ill; 174 E.R. 432.

10 The extent of the term crimen falsi is nowhere laid down with precision, but see Wigmore, Evidence. Section 520, II, 612 (3rd ed.).

11 2 Salk. 689; 91 E.R. 584.

12 1 Cowp. 1,3: 98 E.R. 935, 936.

13 9 Geo. 4, c. 32, ss. 3, 4.

14 9 C. & P. 555; 173 E.R. 953.

15 1 Stra. 635; 93 E.R. 746.

16 This seems to be the explanation of the competence of the co-prisoner after sentence in Lyons and Fletcher, though the report is silent on the point.

17 6 & 7 Vict. c. 85.

18 Until Lord Brougham's Act, 1851 (post), the parties in a civil case were unable to testify.

19 1 Cox 228.

20 1 Cox 232.

21 1 Den. 84; 2 C. & K. 462; 169 E.R. 161; 10 J.P. 690; 1 Cox 289.

22 According to 2 C & K. 462, 466, fifteen judges delivered judgement, but according to 1 Den. 84, 89, only the ten judges who heard the arguement.

23 The nearest approach to a reported judgment is this summary in 1 Cox 289, sub nom. R. v. Williams.

24 10 J.P. 690, 691.

25 4 Cox 260.

26 6 Cox 525.

27 L.R. 1 Q.B. 289, 312.

28 L.R. 1 Q.B. 289, 320, 324.

29 L.R. 1 C.C.R. 349, 354.

30 13 Cox 61; 39 J.P. 502; 32 L.T. 406.

31 Lord Tenterden C.J., Ry. & Mo. 401; 171 E.R. 1063.

32 Platt B., V. Williams J., 9 C. & P. 83.

33 Irish Court for Crown Cases Reserved. 7 Cox 337.

34 Cases t. Hardwicke 303; 95 E.R. 196.

35 Dears. 431; 6 Cox 458; 24 L.J.M.C. 63. Sub nom. Luck, 24 L.T. (o.s.) 280; 3 W.R. 246; 1 Jur. (n.s.) 119; 19 J.P. 87; C.L.R. 440.

36 Reported only in 19 J.P. 87.

37 3 C.L.R. 440, 441, per Jervis C.J.

38 34 L.T. 126, 127, per Blackburn J.

39 [1894] P. 248, 253, per Lopes L.J.

40 Four Queen's Bench judges: L.R. 1 Q.B. 289; 12 Jur (n.s.) 91. Fifteen judges in the Court for Crown Cases Reserved: 10 Cox 276, 326. Seven judges in the Court of Exchequer Chamber: 12 Jur. (n.s.) 561; 14 L.T. 567.

41 See note 27, ante.

42 12 Cox 118, 121. By this time he had changed his opinion from the position he adopted in Winsor (See L.R. 1 C.C.R. 349, 354).

43 1 Cox 174.

44 3 C. & K. 190.

45 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99.

46 In R. v. Deeley, 11 Cox 607.

47 In R. v. Payne and Allmann (unreported).

48 L.R. 1 C.C.R. 349; 41 L.J.M.C. 65; 12 Cox 118; 26 L.T. 41; 20 W.R. 390.

49 Dears. 555.

50 1 F. & F. 388; 175 E.R. 776.

51 See Russell on Crime, 8th ed. (1923)Google Scholar, 2130, note (q). These three cases are not necessarily cases of co-prisoner accomplices, but illustrate the practice at that time.

52 See also Blackburn, J. in Winsor: L.R. 1 Q.B. 289, 320Google Scholar, where he states that it is right to tell the jury to look at such evidence with great cantion.

53 30 Cr.App.R. 99.

54 32 Cr.App.R. 124; [1948] 1 All E.R. 145.

55 The words “for the defence” should be compared with the Draft Criminal Code. 1879, which would have permitted such evidence “for himself.”

56 2 Cr.App.R. 322; 73 J.P. 490; 25 T.L.R. 808; 53 S.J. 745.

57 The Times, December 18, 1920.Google Scholar In the C.C.A., 15 Cr.App.R. 129.

58 [1910] 1 K.B. 458; 3 Cr.App.R. 277; 79 L.J.K.B. 327.

59 17 Cr.App.R. 66, 68. The last sentence has been confined in Barnes (1940) 27 Cr.App.R. 154, 165, to cases where it is an essential part of one prisoner's defence to attack another, and even in such a case the court has a discretion to allow a joint trial: Grondowski (1946) 31 Cr.App.R. 116.

60 [1902] 1 K.B. 882; 71 L.J.K.B. 581; 86 L.T. 601; 18 T.L.R. 555; 50 W.R. 589; 66 J.P. 456; 20 Cox 206.

61 One effect is of course that a plea of guilty or an acquittal is no longer necessary before the prisoner can be sworn.

62 1 Cr.App.R. 177, 178; 73 J.P. 12.

63 [1920] 2 K.B. 183; 89 L.J.K.B. 801; 123 L.T. 336; 84 J.P. 144; 14 Cr.App.R. 155; 36 T.L.R. 418; 64 S.J. 447; 26 Cox 619.

64 12 Cr.App.R. 34. Lord Reading C.J., Serutton, Atkin JJ.

65 [1919] 1 K.B. 572; 88 L.J.K.B. 593; 14 Cr.App.R. 17.

66 10 Cr.App.R. 1, 3.

67 2 Cr.App.R. 215.

68 5 Cr.App.R. 4, 6.

69 In Phipson's Manual of Evidence (1950) 7th ed. 212Google Scholar, it is said that the testimony of either thief or receiver against the other does not fall within the rule requiring corroboration of an accomplice. The same statement is in Phipson on Evidence (1942), 8th ed., 478, and Haslam (1786) 1 Lea.C.C. 418 is cited. Haslam does not support this proposition which is contrary to good sense and to the following authorities: Robinson, 4 F. & F. 43; Pratt, 4 F. & F. 315; Mellor, Russell on Crime, 8th ed., 2130; Jacobs, 1 Cr.App.R. 215; Bowler, 2 Cr.App.R. 168; Powell, 3 Cr.App.R. 1; Mullins, 5 Cr.App.R. 13; Jennings, 7 Cr.App.R. 242; Norris, 12 Cr.App.R. 156; Bryant, 13 Cr.App.R. 49; Dixon, 19 Cr.App.R. 36; Reynolds, 20 Cr.App.R. 125; Medcraft, 23 Cr.App.R. 116.

70 1 Cr.App.R. 124.

71 17 Cr.App.R. 80.

72 24 Cr.App.R. 141.

73 21 Cr.App.R. 33.

74 24 Cr.App.R. 177.

75 16 Cr.App.R. 171, 174.

76 14 Cr.App.R. 17.

77 16 Cr.App.R. 182.

78 43 Sc.L.R. 395.

79 1923 J.C. 66.

80 1928 J.C. 5.

81 1932 J.C. 63.

82 Phipson on Evidence, 8th ed. (1942), 451.Google Scholar

83 27 Cr.App.R. 154; 56 T.L.R. 379; [1940] 2 All E.R. 229; 84 S.J. 258.

84 [1940] 2 All E.R. 229.

85 27 Cr.App.R. 154, 166.

86 Unfortunately the learned editors of Archbold cite the case as authority for the proposition that the rule of practice with regard to the corroboration of an accomplice applies only to witnesses called for the prosecution; 32nd ed. (1949), 463.

87 29 Cr.App.R. 46.

88 26 Cr.App.R. 10.

89 22 Cr.App.R. 33.

90 29 Cr.App.R. 40, 43.

91 32 Cr.App.R. 138; 64 T.L.R. 240; 92 S J. 206.

92 32 Cr.App.R. 138, 140.

93 32 Cr.App.R. 138, 142.

94 15 L.Q.R. 120.

95 In Phipson's Manual (1950), 7th ed., 192Google Scholar, note 49, the view of Lord Alverstone has, however, disappeared in favour of R. v. Rudd.

96 Archbold, 32nd ed., 501, 463 (1949).Google Scholar

97 Ante, pp. 219–220.

98 Unless he merely makes an unsworn statement from the dock. In principle this should not be evidence against a co-prisoner, as not subject to cross-examination, and semble Avory J. so held in R. v. Kennedy and Browne, The Times, April 28, 1928. Counsel for the other prisoner can comment on the refusal to face cross-examination: ibid., in the C.C.A., The Times, May 23, 1928.Google Scholar