Regina v Hay: 1896

A Roman Catholic priest had received, doubtless unknowingly, a watch that had been stolen. The priest was called to give evidence and was asked from whom did he receive the watch. He refused to answer saying that the reply would implicate the person who gave it to him and he would be violating the laws of the church.
Held: The judge advised the priest: ‘I have already told you plainly I cannot enter into this question. All I can say is you are bound to answer. From whom did you receive that watch. On the ground I have stated to you, you are not asked to disclose anything that a penitent may have said to you in the confessional. That you are not asked to disclose; but you are asked to disclose from whom you received stolen property on the 25th of December last. Do you answer it or do you not?’
When the priest continued to refuse to answer the Judge sent him to prison for contempt.

Citations:

(1896) 2 FandF4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLancashire County Council v E and F FD 4-Feb-2020
The court heard an application to set aside a witness summons, raising an important issue about the circumstances in which disclosure can be resisted on grounds of a religious duty of confidentiality, in the context of allegations of child sexual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.648629