R v Hayes
1977 · 1 WLR 234
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Two boys, aged about eleven and twelve, gave evidence for the prosecution on counts of incest and buggery. The judge did not put the old question, whether they understood the divine sanction of an oath. He satisfied himself that they understood the importance of telling the truth in the proceedings.
- Issue
- Must a child understand an oath in a religious sense before he can be sworn?
- Held
- No. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. A child may be sworn if he understands that to tell the truth in court is a solemn duty, beyond the ordinary duty to tell the truth.
- Principle
- The test for to be sworn is secular. It is understanding, not a fixed age and not a particular belief.
- Why it matters
- It is the test for children and for witnesses of defective intellect. R v Bellamy is the case where the test was not met.
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.