R v Wallwork

Facts

A father was charged with incest with his daughter, who was five. She was called. She said nothing of any evidential value. The jury also heard of a previous conviction.

Issue

Should a child of five have been called, and was the previous conviction admissible?

Held

The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the conviction. Lord Goddard CJ said that calling a child of five was most undesirable, and that the jury could attach no value to such evidence. The previous conviction had been wrongly admitted.

Principle

There is no fixed age of competence, but a child who cannot give an account should not be put in the box. A previous conviction is not admitted merely to show disposition.

Why it matters

The working rule that a child under eight should not testify is not the holding of Wright and Ormerod. Hayes is the test once the child is old enough to be considered.

For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.