The court rejected a statement made by a prisoner in custody to a constable who had cross-examined him, saying merely that the police have no right to manufacture evidence.
Judges:
Cave, J
Citations:
(1893) 17 Cox 689
Cited by:
Cited – Ibrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .
Compare – Regina v Goddard 1896
The court admitted a statement made by a prisoner in custody to a constable who had cross-examined him. . .
Explained – Rogers v Hawken QBD 1894
(Year unknown) In a case of the admissibility of questions put before arrest, the Divisional Court, (judges not prone to lean against a prisoner)
Held: The statement was admissible and observed that ‘R. v. Male must not be taken as laying down . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Evidence
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.184193
