R v Brasier
1779 · 1 Leach 199
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- A man was tried for assaulting a girl under seven. The child was not called. Her mother and another woman told the court what the child had said to them shortly afterwards. The question was reserved for the judges.
- Issue
- Can a young child be heard, and can the court receive what she told her mother?
- Held
- The judges held that a child is competent only if she understands the nature and obligation of an oath, which is a matter for the court to inquire into. What she told her mother, she not being sworn, was not evidence.
- Principle
- to swear depends on understanding the oath, not on a fixed age. A complaint repeated by someone else is not a substitute for the child's own evidence.
- Why it matters
- Hayes later replaced the religious form of the test. The rule that a complaint is consistency, not proof of the facts, starts here and is restated in Christie and Whitehead.
Words and Latin in this note
- Competence
- The law's permission to give evidence. A person who does not understand the duty to tell the truth, or whom a rule excludes, is not competent. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.