R v Mount
Uploaded by
Tonique GordonR v Mount
Uploaded by
Tonique GordonCOURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.
135
BEFORE
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE CHARLES AND
MR ..JUSTICE LAWRENCE.
FRANCIS HENRY MOUNT. 1934.
JAMES ROBERT METCALFE.
Evidence-Shu/JUrflll.:iIlM-'J'hr/'j" Prisuners Charged jointly-
IV ije uj one cILl/cd liS U' itllt.'ss by Prosecution-Not a
COlllpt'tent n·itllns-C(Hlviction.~ '/1Ul,\hed.
Three prisuners were charged jointly with shopbreaking,
and all were convicted. The wife of one of the prisoners
was called as a witness for the Crown, and, after stating
that she was willing to give evidence, gave evidence which
was vital to the case against the other two prisoners. These
two prisoners appealed.
Held, as the wiFe of the third prisuner was not a com-
petent witness for the prosecution, the convictions must be
quashcd.
Appeals against conviction.
The appellants, together with a man named Irving,
were charged at Salford Hundred Quarter Sessions on
January 24, 1984, with shopbreaking and larceny. All
three prisoners were convicted, and the appellants were
sentenced by the Chairman as follows: Mount to eighteen
months' imprisonment with hard labour, and Metcalfe to
three years' penal servitude.
At the trial Mrs. Irving, the wife of the prisoner Irving,
was called as a witness for the prosecution. She was asked
if she was willing to give evidence and replied that she was.
She then gave evidence of a conversation at her house on
the afternoon before the offence was committed between
all three prisoners, and deposed that Metcalfe had said to
the other prisoners: "I've a job spotted; I'll try to pull
it off." The Chairman, in his summing-up, referred to the
136 COUR. OF C~IMINAL APPEAL.
1934 . evidence of Mrs. Irving as "very pointed evidence," and
.5 March.
her evidence was the only evidence against the prisoner
FRANCIS
HENRY
Mount.
MOUNT.
JAMES
ROBERT .1. P. Ashworth, for the appellants:
l\lETCALFE.
Mrs. hving was not a competent witness, and the fact
Hewl\rt, that she gave evidence for the prosecution was a grave
L.C.J.,
Cha.rles, J .. irregularity, especially in view of the fact that her evidence
La.wrence, J.
was, as the Chairman described it, " very pointed evidence."
[He was stopped.]
Meroyn J. E. Morgan, for the Crown, did not seek
to support the conviction.
CHARLES, J.: These appellants, together with a man
named Irving, were found guilty at Salford Hundred
Quarter Se!lsions on a charge of shopbreaking, and were
sentenced by the Chairman-Mount to eighteen months'
imprisonment with hard labour, and Mctcalfe to three years'
penal servitude.
They were not represented at the trial, and as the trial
proceeded it occurred to somebody to call Mrs. Irving, the
wife of one of the prisoners-a procedure which was com-
pletely irregular. She gave evidence, which was referred
to by the Chairman in his !iumming-up as being very pointed
evidence indeed. It certainly was pointed evidence, for the
witness said that all three prisont!rs met at ll~r house on the
afternoon before the shop was broken into, and that Met-
cH.lfe said: "I've a job spotted; I'll try to pull it off," and
she gave further evidence of later conversations about
watches and rings between Metcalfe and Irving and Irving
and Mount. All that evidence was absolutely inadmissible.
It has long been held that at common law a wife is not
only not a compellable. but not even a competent, witness
against her husband. That principle was enunciated with
regard to a case where prisoners are charged jointly in
TBOMPSON (1872), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 877, where it was made
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. 13:-
quite clear that, where two or more persons are indicted J!l3~,
5 MUI"ch,
jointly, the wife or husband of any such defendant is not
FR.HICIS
lin available witness against any co-defendant. Indeed, HENRY
~I()I·:-;T
save for certain exceptional cases which are to be found
.IAMES
in the Schedule to the CrImina Evidence Act, 1898, that HORFRT
~1F.T'·.\LFE.
rule of common law is absolute and undisturbed. The
Hpwllrt,
evidence of Mrs. Irving was really vital to the case and, ].,(' . .1. ,
so far as Mount waS' concerned. it was the only evidence Chnrle,. ,I .•
L"wrencp. ,I.
which could hc found against hIn1-
In these circulllstances, the admission of the eviden('e ,..,r
!\Irs. Irving, who \\'a<; not :1 competent witne~<; upon the
occasion, was, in the opinion of the Court. fatal to thcsc
convictions. We have come to the conclusion that thcsc
appeals mllst be allowed and these conviction<; quashed.
C01lvlctions quashed.
