People (Attorney General) v Wickham

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal
Judgment Date01 January 1949
Date01 January 1949
The People (Attorney-General) v. Wickham
THE PEOPLE (at the suit of the Attorney-General)

Court of Criminal Appeal.

Criminal law - Evidence - Statement made by accused - Statement taken down in writing and read over to accused - Document orally acknowledged by accused to be correct - Refusal of accused to sign document - Document admissible in evidence notwithstanding no acknowledgment in writing.

Accused after being arrested and after being properly cautioned made a statement to a police officer which amounted to a confession of the offence charged. The statement was taken down in writing by the police officer who then read it over to the accused and asked him if he wished to make any alterations or corrections in it. The accused said the statement was correct but he refused to sign it until he should have seen a solicitor. At the trial the unsigned document was admitted in evidence notwithstanding objection by tho defence. The accused was convicted. On an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal:

Held that the document was properly admitted. There is no discoverable difference between a document containing a record of a statement made by the accused which is read over to him and acknowledged though not signed by him and a document signed by him.

Criminal, Appeal.

The applicant, Martin Wickham, was, on the 26th day of May, 1948, convicted at Wexford Circuit Court, before Judge Fawsitt and a jury, of having unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl over 15 and under 17 years of age contrary to sub-s. 1 of s. 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935.

At the trial, the prosecution tendered in evidence a document which purported to be a record of a statement made by the accused which incriminated him. Counsel for the defence objected to the admission of this document because it was neither signed nor acknowledged by the accused in writing. The jury retired and the police officer who took the statement gave evidence of which the following is the material part:—

"Q.—Were you asking questions?

A.—What he said I wrote down. I explained to him about what the caution meant; that he need not make any statement but if he did make a statement I would take it down in writing and it might be used in evidence. He proceeded to make a statement and I wrote it down.

Q.—Did you read the statement over to him then?

A.—I did.

Judge—Was Sergeant Diffley present at this time?


Q.—When you read it over to him?

A.—Yes. I asked him did he want to make any alterations or corrections in it and he said: 'The statement is correct.'

Q.—What happened then?

A.—I asked him would he sign the statement and he said: 'I would rather see a solicitor before I would sign the statement.'

Q.—Was Sergeant Diffley present during the taking of the whole of that statement?

A.— Yes."

Counsel for the defence did not cross-examine and renewed his objection on the ground that the accused had not acknowledged the document as his document. The trial Judge admitted the document in evidence and the accused was convicted and sentenced to three years' penal servitude.

From this conviction and sentence the accused applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT