The defendant stood charged with the murder of a woman, part of whose body was found in a parcel along with a handwritten note bearing the words ‘Bladie Belgiam’. The defendant, who had not yet been cautioned, was asked by the police to write the words ‘Bloody Belgian’, which he did. He made exactly the same misspelling as had the writer of the note. The handwriting was admitted in evidence.
Held: His appeal failed. It did not make any difference to the admissibility of the handwriting whether it was written voluntarily or under compulsion. Where it is alleged that a statement has been obtained in breach of the Judges’ Rules, the court has a discretion to admit or reject such evidence.
Lawrence J spoke of the Judges’ Rules: ‘These Rules have not the force of law; they are administrative directions the observance of which the police authorities should enforce upon their subordinates as tending to the fair administration of justice. It is important that they should do so, for statements obtained from prisoners contrary to the spirit of these Rules may be rejected as evidence by the judge presiding at the trial.’
Judges:
Lawrence J, Lush J
Citations:
[1918] 1 KB 531, [1918-19] All ER 491
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Nottle CACD 25-Feb-2004
The defendant appealed against his conviction for criminal damage. He had been accused of scratching an obscene message on a car. In doing so the person had misspelled the car owner’s name. When asked to write out the message, on interview the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.448371