Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1
    Brick wall demolition expert!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    3,354

    Default Legal Terminology

    If you look at HO 27 "Criminal Registers, England And Wales, 1805-1892" you will see that each page sets out defendants name, crime charged and on the opposite page the trial outcome.

    The outcome page is set out in columns:
    Death
    Transportation
    Imprisonment
    Acquittals

    Under Acquittals there are a number of different phrases used, some of which are obvious - "Not Guilty", but others which are required some research:

    No Bill - effectively means insufficient evidence to bring a charge

    No Prosecution - effectively means that all charges have been dropped

    Admitted Evidence - I don't know what this means, and that is the point of this post to see if someone can shed some light on it for me.

    Thanks in advance

  2. #2
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    8,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan Roberts View Post

    Admitted Evidence - I don't know what this means, and that is the point of this post to see if someone can shed some light on it for me.[/INDENT]

    Thanks in advance
    I've been watching the QI XL programmes on BBC iPlayer and in one of them they were talking about evidence in court cases. As usual, I can't remember exactly what was said, and, even worse, can't remember which of the programmes it was in.
    However, five minutes later, and Bingo!!!
    It's in the episode 15: Next, and starts about 38 minutes in. However, it doesn't answer your question, but might prove interesting to you.

    I did google 'Admitted evidence' and it seems to be something that the accused previously admitted to (usually in writing). Which if you think about it, makes sense. e.g. "Yes, I was in the Dog and Duck Tavern at 7pm on the night in question." though that alone doesn't necessarily make someone guilty of the crime.

    Pam
    Vulcan XH558 - “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”

  3. #3
    Reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    16,711

    Default

    I thought admitted evidence was just evidence that was judged admissible and therefore admitted. I don't think it implies an admission of guilt because that surely wouldn't be grounds for acquittal.

    If I were you, I'd ask one of the National Archives experts. There's an online contact form on the website.

  4. #4
    Brick wall demolition expert!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    3,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Goodey View Post
    I thought admitted evidence was just evidence that was judged admissible and therefore admitted. I don't think it implies an admission of guilt because that surely wouldn't be grounds for acquittal.

    If I were you, I'd ask one of the National Archives experts. There's an online contact form on the website.
    I agree that it has something to do with what evidence is or is not admissible, and that is determined by the judge, rather than the prosecution or defence, but I do not see the nuanced difference between this and the other forms of acquittal.

    I will see if I can find any guidance from the National Archives.

    Thank you Peter, and thank you Pam

  5. #5

    Default

    I think it may have something to do with a possible offender spilling the beans about his/her fellow offenders?
    "dyfal donc a dyr y garreg"

  6. #6
    Brick wall demolition expert!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    3,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by helachau View Post
    I think it may have something to do with a possible offender spilling the beans about his/her fellow offenders?
    It could be but that's normally Kings Evidence - however if I get a response from Kew I will add it to this thread.

  7. #7

    Default

    An abridgement of the modern determination in the courts of law and equity being a supplement to Viner's abridgement; .... Author James Edward Watson, 1799-1806, Vol 1

    "There are three ways in law and practice which gives accomplices a right to a pardon, and there is one mode which entitles them to a recommendation to the king's mercy ...."

    He goes on to describe this "one mode" -

    "There is besides a practice which indeed does not give a legal right, and that is where accomplices having made a full and fair confession to the whole truth, are in consequence thereof admitted evidence for the crown, and that evidence is afterwards made use of to convict other offenders. If in that case they act fairly and openly, and discover the whole truth, though they are not entitled of right to a pardon, yet the usage, the lenity and the practice of the court is to stop the prosecution against them"
    "dyfal donc a dyr y garreg"

  8. #8

    Default

    That sounds in some ways like the Scots 3rd verdict - not proven…

  9. #9

    Default

    The Life of David Haggart, 1821 - dictated in his cell while awaiting execution -
    "About ten days after, I was taken over to the Bulkie Kane, and put at the bar, along with George Bagrie, on a charge for stealing the woman's watch at the Candlemaker's Row. Bagrie had told everything, for the purpose of being admitted evidence against me. However, it was thought that the proof was clear without him, and I got sixty days in the Planting; he got sixty days also".

    Henry Fielding, well known London JP, referred to it in his novel "The History of Jonathon Wild, the Great" (1743)

    "Wild then intimating his fear lest Fierce should impeach Sly, advised him to be before hand, to surrender himself to a justice of the peace, and offer himself as evidence. Sly approving Mr Wild's opinion, went directly to a magistrate, and was by him committed to a gatehouse, with a promise of being admitted evidence against his companions".
    "dyfal donc a dyr y garreg"

  10. #10

    Default

    From the House of Correction at Kirkdale, for the year ending Michaelmas 1837

    PRISONERS FOR TRIAL, OR TRIED AT ASSIZES OR SESSIONS IN THE COURSE OF THE YEAR
    No. of prisoners before Trial - 407
    Convicted - 297
    Aquitted at the Bar - 73
    No Bills found - 19
    Not prosecuted - 9
    Found insane on Arraignment - 0
    Aquitted as insane - 0
    Admitted Evidence on part of Crown - 6
    Bailed in Court to take their Trial at a subsequent tribunal - 3
    Committed for Re-examination, but not afterwards fully committed, being discharged, bailed or delivered into the Custody of Peace Officers charged to be committed in distant Place - 0
    "dyfal donc a dyr y garreg"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: