R v Johnston

JurisdictionIreland
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal
Judgment Date13 April 1864
Date13 April 1864

Crim. Appeal.

THE QUEEN
and
MARY JOHNSTON.

Regina v. Bodkin 8 Ir. Jur. 340.

Regina v. BaldryENR 2 Den. C. C. 430.

Rex v. Thornton 1 Moo. C. C. 27.

Rex v. Wild 1 Moo. C. C. 452.

The King v. Gibney Jebb. Res. Cas. 15.

Regina v. Hughes 1 Cr. & Dix. Cir. C. 13.

Regina v. Doyle 1 Cr. & Dix. Cir. C. 396.

Regina v. Devlin 2 Cr. & Dix. Cir. C. 157.

Regina v. Toole 7 Cox. Cr. L. 244.

Regina v. Hassett 8 Cox. Cr. L. 511.

Regina v. Bodkin 8 Ir. Jur., N. S., 340.

Regina v. Pettit 4 Cox. Cr. L. 164.

Rex v. Gibney Jebb. Res. Cases, 15.

Regina v. Hughes Joy on Confessions, 39.

Thornton 1 Moo. C. C. 27.

Rex v. Gilham 1 Moo. C. C. 186.

Rex v. Wild 1 Moo. C. C. 452.

Regina v. KerrENR 8 C. & P. 176.

Regina v. ChevertonENR 2 F. & F. 833.

Rex v. Ellis Ry. & Moo. 432.

Regina v. Devlin 2 Cr. & Dix. Cir. C. 151.

Regina v. Toole 7 Cox. C. C. 244.

Baldry's case Ubi supra.

Regina v. PettitENR 4 Cox. 164.

Regina v. Berriman 6 Cox. C. C. 389.

Lamb's caseENR 2 Leach, 154.

Baldry's caseENR 2 Den. 446.

Thornton's case 1 Moo. C. C. 27.

The King v. WildENR 1 Moody, C. C. 452.

Gilham's case Moody, C. C. 186.

The Queen v. BerrimanENR 6 Cox, 388.

The Queen v. Cheverton 2 F. & Fin. 833.

The Queen v. BaldryENR 2 Den. C. C. 430.

The Queen v. KerrENR 8 C. & P. 179.

Rex v. Wilson 1 Holt, N. P. C. 597.

Rex v. CourtENR 7 Car. & P. 486.

The Queen v. ReesENR 7 Car. & P. 569.

The Queen v. BartlettENR 7 Car. & P. 832.

Queen v. PettitENR 4 Cox, 164.

The Queen v. Stripp 1 Dear. C. C. 648.

The Queen v. Margaret Hughes 1 Cr. & Dix. C. C. 115.

The Queen v. Devlin 2 Cr. & Dix. C. C. 152.

The Queen v. Francis Hughes Joy, 39.

The Queen v. TooleENR 7 Cox, 244.

Beckwith v. PhilbyENR 6 B. & C. 636.

Rex v. Wilson 1 Holt. N. P. 597.

Regina v. Pettit 4 Cox C. C. 164.

The Queen v. WaringhamENR 2 Den. C. C. 447.

The Queen v. MooreENR 2 Den. C. C. 327.

Baldrey's caseENR 2 Den. C. C. 242.

Regina v. Devlin 2 C. & Dix, C. C., 151.

Regina v. Gray Levinge on Justice of the Peace, P. 36; 7 Cox. C. C., 246 n.

Regina v. Bodkin 8 Ir. Jur., N. S., 340.

Gibney's case Jebb's Reserved Cases, 15.

Rex v. Wilson 1 Holt N. P; 597.

The King v. Ellis Ryan & M. 432.

Baldry's caseENR 2 Den. C. C. 441.

Regina v. Berriman 6 Cox C. C. 388.

Gibney's case Jebb's C. C. 15.

Rex v. ThorntonENR 1 Moody C. C. 27

Rex v. Wild Moody C. C. 452.

Thornton's caseENR 1 Moody C. C. 27.

Rex v. WildENR 1 Moody C. C. 452.

Regina v. KerrENR 8 C. & P. 176.

Rex v. BartlettENR 7 C. & P. 832.

Rex v. CourtENR 7 C. & P. 486.

Rex v. ReesENR 7 C. & P. 568.

Rex v. Berriman 6 Cox, C. C. 388.

Baldry's caseENR 2 Den. C. C. 430.

Rex v. ChevertonENR 2 F. & F. 833.

Gibney's case Jebb's Cr. Cas. 15.

Wilde's case 1 Moo. C. C. 452.

Regina v. KerrENR 1 Car. & P. 176.

Bartlett's caseENR 7 Car. & P. 832.

Regina v. Ellis Ryan & Moo. 422.

The Queen v. pettit 4 Cox. C. C. 164.

Regina v. Berriman 8 Cox, C. C. 388.

Wild's case 1 Moo. C. C. 452.

Rex v. Gibney Jebb, P. & C. C. 15.

Regina v. Doyle 1 Cr. & Dix, C. C. 396.

Rex v. Thornton 1 Moo. C. C. 127

Ranken v. Newsom 1 Hud. & Bro. 77.

Regina v. Hughes 1 Cr. & Dix, C. C. 13.

Regina v. Hassett 8 Cox, C. C. 511.

Regina v. Toole 7 Cox, C. C. 244.

Regina v. PettitENR 4 Cox, 164, 165.

Regina v. Hughes 1 Cr. & Dix, C. C. 15.

Regina v. MickENR 3 F. & F. 822.

Regina v. WarringtonENR 2 Den. C. C. 447.

Rex v. Wilson Holt's N. P. C. 597.

Rex v. EllisENR Ryan & Moody, 432.

Baldry's caseENR 2 Den. C. C. 430.

Stripp's caseENR 1 Dearsly, 649.

The Queen v. ArnoldENR 8 C. & P. 621.

60 COMMON LAW REPORTS. H. T. 1864. Cris. Appeal COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. Jan. 23. April 13. M. J., suspec- THE following case was reserved from the Commission Court for ted of having committed fe- the county of Dublin, by the Hon. Justice O'Bnins and the Hon. lony, was fol lowed and Justice CHRISTIAN. stopped by a constable in The prisoner was tried before us, on the 9th of December last, plain clothes. at the Commission for the county of Dublin, for having feloniously The constable having told stolen eight boots, the property of William Hutchings. M. J. what he was, and that The first witness examined was Mr. W. Hutchings, who stated she (M. J.) was charged with town ; that prisoner came into his shop on Saturday the 28th of felony, pro ceeded to put to the effect that he kept a boot and shoe and leather shop in Kings several ques tions to her, November last, and asked to be fitted with a pair of boots, which relative to a parcel in her was done. That at her request be allowed her to remain in the hand, which • shop for some time ; that, while she was there, he went out of contained the goods sup- the shop, and left his assistant, P. Redmond, there ; and that when posed to have been stolen. witness returned to the shop, in about a quarter of an hour, the At the time he asked the prisoner had gone ; that she returned in about ten minutes after questions, the constable had wards, and said that the boots she selected were rather tight, and not told M. J. that she was that she wished him to take her measure for another pair; that under arrest, " but he would he did so, and asked for her address ; that she gave her name as not have let her go." He Miss Johnston; told him to send the pair of boots to Mr. Knight's did not eye- shop in Kingstown, le and that she left witness's shop in a coup pressly hold out any threat or inducement to M. J.; nor did he, before she answered him, give her any caution. M. J. having answered the questions, the constable then told her she was not bound to say any- thinc, that would criminate herself ; and said he should bring her to the police-office. -Held, by eight Judges, that the conversation between M. J. and the constable was receivable in evidence ; and, by three Judges, that it was not so receivable Cases on this point generally reviewed.114014 Adrces r 01444 * Ceram LEFROT, C. J., MONAHAN, C. J., PIGOT, C. B., BALL, KEOGH, O'BRIEN and HAYES, FITZGERALD and HUGHES, BB., VT-:FZGERALD, and DEASY, B. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 61 of minutes afterwards. That on the next day, two detective police- H. T. 1864. rim. Appeal. men called on him, and brought him four odd boots, which were his. C QUEEN THE These boots were produced to witness at the trial, and appeared to v. be all for the right foot. Witness stated he had the fellows of them J'onrssxou. all, and produced them at the trial. He also stated that be had all the right boots in his shop on the morning of the 28th of November, and that he did not give them to the prisoner. This witness was cross-examined as to the fact of the boots brought to him by the policeman being his ; and also as to whether they might not have been sold in the shop by his niece, who someÂÂtimes sold boots for him, or by his assistant, said P. Redmond, who were not examined. The second witness was William Doyle, a policeman. He stated that, on Saturday the 28th of November last, he and another policeman (Inspector M'Dermott) followed the'risoner from Dublin to Kingstown, by railway ; that they followed her to several places in Kingstown, and saw her go on two occasions into Mr. Hutchings's shop. That then they followed her to the railway station at KingsÂÂtown, and went back to Dublin in the same train with her. That she had a small paper parcel and a bag in her hand when going into the train at Kingstown ; and that at Westland-row station* she laid the parcel on the ticket-office. That Inspector M'Dermott and witness (who were both in plain clothes) then went up to her. Witness stated what took place on their going up to her as folÂÂlows:-"I told her we belonged to the police, and that she was "described to us as having stolen boots from shops in the city. " I also said to her that she was charged as committing felony. "I asked her what she had in the parcel. I would not have let' " her go ; but I did not tell her that I would not do so." Witness was then asked by the Crown Counsel " what did the "prisoner say to you when you asked her what she had in the "parcel?" Mr. Curran, prisoner's Counsel, objected to-that question ; and the witness being further examined, then stated as follows : " I did not, before I asked her that question, or before the prisoner "answered it, give her any caution, or hold out any inducement, 62 COMMON LAW REPORTS; H. T. 1864. " and I have stated all that was said between us. I do not Grim. ripped. "recollect Inspector MgDermott saying anything to her at all." THE QUEEN . Witness then stated (subject to the objection of prisoner's Conn- v JOHNSTON. sel) :-" Prisoner said she had two pair of boots in the parcel ; and "I then, before I said anything else to her, took the parcel from " her ; and then I again asked her where she got them." Prisoner's Counsel then objected to the witness stating what the prisoner said in reply to the witness, and relied, amongst other things, on the decision of the present Lord Chief Baron, in the case of Regina v. Bodkin (a). The evidence being pressed by the Crown Counsel, we stated that we would receive the objection, and that we would reserve the question of its admissibility for the consiÂÂderation of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The witness then stated that, when he asked the prisoner where she got the boots, she said that "she was made a present of them in Kingstown ;" and the witness also stated (subject to the like objection and reservation) the subsequent part of the conversation between him and the prisoner on that occasion, as follows :-" I said to the prisoner " that I saw her in Mr. Hutchings's shop in Kingstown ; and I " asked whether it was there she got them ; she said yes ; and " that she took them out of that. I then told her, after she " answered the foregoing questions, she was not bound to say "anything that would criminate herself; and I told her that we "should arrest her, and bring her to the police-office, which we "did. I kept the boots "-[witness identified them as those already produced to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v Kelly (No. 2)
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1983
    ...Docks & Harbour Board v. ProcterELR [1923] A.C. 253. 24 Benmax v. Austin Motor Co.ELR [1955] A.C. 370. 25 R. v. JohnstonUNK (1864) 15 I.C.L.R. 60. 26 The People (Attorney General) v. GalvinIR [1964] I.R. 325. 27 The People (Attorney General) v. C.DIJR [1943] Ir. Jur. Rep. 74. 28 The Peo......
  • Tofilau v The Queen
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 30 August 2007
    ...is not voluntary: R v Kwabena Poku [1978] Crim LR 488; R v Anderson (1991) 105 FLR 25, and unreported cases referred to at 31. 432 (1864) 15 ICLR 60 433 (1909) 9 CLR 713 . 434 (1864) 15 ICLR 60 at 83–84. 435 Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1 at 15. 436 Attorney-General (NSW) v Martin (......
  • Peart v The Queen
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 14 February 2006
    ...lies to get himself out of trouble. The most cogent expression of this risk is contained in the dissenting judgment of Pigot CB in R v Johnston (1864) 15 ICLR 60 at 121: "The danger is that an innocent person, suddenly arrested, and questioned by one having the power to detain or set ......
  • Greene v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Indexes
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 18-4, October 2014
    • 1 October 2014
    ...Prosecutor v Mazlan bin Maidun [1992] 3SLR(R) 968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265Queen, Thev Johnston (1864)15 ICLR 60 . . . 132,133–135Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor [2012] 2 SLR1012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265R v Addey, ......
  • The Privilege against Self-Incrimination from Early Origins to Judges' Rules: Challenging the ‘Orthodox View’
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 18-2, April 2014
    • 1 April 2014
    ...Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851, s. 14), so too certainly should questions posed by those of a lesserstanding—see The Queen vJohnston (1864) 15 ICLR 60 at 95, per O’Brien remain silent in their dealings with the police but, by virtue of the voluntarinessrule, the very act of questioning by the ......

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