swarb.co.uk

Channell J said: ‘the moment you have decided to charge him and practically got him into custody, then, inasmuch as a judge even cannot ask a question or a magistrate, it is ridiculous to suppose that a policeman can. But there is no actual authority yet that if a policeman does ask a question it is inadmissible; what happens is that the judge says it is not advisable to press the matter.’ (approved on appeal)

Date: 01-Jan-1910
Judges: Channell J
References: (1910) 5 Criminal Appeal Reports 179
Cited By:

• Ibrahim -v- The King, PC, Cited, (Bailii, PC, [1914] UKPC 1, [1914] AC 599)

Referring to the admissibility of answers to questions put before an arrest, ‘it is quite impossible to say that the fact that a question of this kind has been asked invalidates the trial’.

Court: CCA
Date: 01-Jan-1909
Judges: Channell, J
References: (1909) 1 KBD 692,
Cases Cited:

• Regina -v- Gavin, , Doubted, ((1888) (15 Cox 656))

Cited By:

• Ibrahim -v- The King, PC, Cited, (Bailii, PC, [1914] UKPC 1, [1914] AC 599)

Statements were rejected, because they had been obtained from the accused before arrest by means of a long interrogation by a person in authority over him. The court adverted thus to the case of questions put by a constable after arresting:- ‘when he has taken anyone into custody . . he ought not to question the prisoner . . I am not aware of any distinct rule of evidence that, if such improper questions are asked, the answers to them are inadmissible, but there is clear authority for saying that the judge at the trial may in his discretion refuse to allow the answers to be given in evidence.’

Date: 01-Jan-1905
Judges: Channell, J
References: (1905) 20 Cox 711,
Cited By:

• Ibrahim -v- The King, PC, Cited, (Bailii, PC, [1914] UKPC 1, [1914] AC 599)

The court excluded a statement made to a constable, who questioned his prisoner in a way that amounted to cross-examination. A constable has no right to ask questions without expressly saying that the answers cannot be relevant evidence.

Date: 01-Jan-1888
Judges: A.L. Smith, J
References: (1888) (15 Cox 656),
Cited By:

• Regina -v- Brackenbury, , Not followed, ((1893) 17 Cox 628)
• Ibrahim -v- The King, PC, Cited, (Bailii, PC, [1914] UKPC 1, [1914] AC 599)
• Regina -v- Histed, , Applied, ((1898) 19 Cox 16)
• Regina -v- Best, CCA, Doubted, ((1909) 1 KBD 692)

The court rejected a statement made by a prisoner in custody to a constable who had cross-examined him, saying merely that the police have no right to manufacture evidence.

Date: 01-Jan-1893
Judges: Cave, J
References: (1893) 17 Cox 689,
Cited By:

• Ibrahim -v- The King, PC, Cited, (Bailii, PC, [1914] UKPC 1, [1914] AC 599)
• Regina -v- Goddard, , Compare, ((1896) 60 JP 491)
• Rogers -v- Hawken, QBD, Explained, ([1894] 67 LJ QB 526)

The court excluded the answers of a prisoner in custody, on the authority of R. v. Gavin, saying that the constable was entrapping the prisoner and trying by a trick to set a broken-down case on its legs again.

Date: 01-Jan-1898
Judges: Hawkins, J.
References: (1898) 19 Cox 16,
Cases Cited:

• Regina -v- Gavin, , Applied, ((1888) (15 Cox 656))

Cited By:

• Ibrahim -v- The King, PC, Cited, (Bailii, PC, [1914] UKPC 1, [1914] AC 599)

(Year unknown) In a case of the admissibility of questions put before arrest, the Divisional Court, (judges not prone to lean against a prisoner)
Held: The statement was admissible and observed that ‘R. v. Male must not be taken as laying down that a statement of the accused to a police constable without threat or inducement is not admissible. There is no rule of law excluding statements made in such circumstances’.

Court: QBD
Date: 01-Jan-1894
Judges: Russell, LCJ and Mathew J
References: [1894] 67 LJ QB 526,
Cases Cited:

• Regina -v- Male, , Explained, ((1893) 17 Cox 689)

Cited By:

• Ibrahim -v- The King, PC, Cited, (Bailii, PC, [1914] UKPC 1, [1914] AC 599)