Important cases and decisions Priest–penitent privilege in England

1 important cases , decisions

1.1 du barré v. livette
1.2 butler v. moore
1.3 r v. redford
1.4 r v. gilham
1.5 broad v. pitt
1.6 r v. shaw
1.7 greenlaw v. king
1.8 r v. griffin
1.9 constance kent case
1.10 r v. hay
1.11 ruthven v. de bonn

important cases , decisions
du barré v. livette

in case of du barré v. livette (1791) peake 77, lord kenyon again held privilege extend preclude interpreter between solicitor , foreign client giving evidence of had passed.

in report of case plaintiff s counsel informed court mr. justice buller had tried on circuit case (r v. sparkes) , prisoner, in case, papist , came out @ trial had made confession of capital crime protestant clergyman. confession had been received in evidence judge , prisoner convicted , executed. catholic encyclopedia contends obvious neither of parties have regarded confession sacramental. lord kenyon said have paused before admitting such evidence, adding

but case differs it. popish religion no longer known law of country, nor necessary prisoner make confession aid him in defence. relation between attorney , client old law itself.

butler v. moore

in case priest imprisoned contempt of court refusing answer whether john butler, 12th baron dunboyne, professed catholic faith @ time of death. statute have nullified lord dunboyne s had such been case. butler v. moore irish case (ireland @ time formed part of united kingdom, had separate legal system).

r v. redford

in 1823, in case of r v. redford, tried before william draper best, 1st baron wynford, chief justice of common pleas on circuit, when church of england clergyman give in evidence confession of guilt made him prisoner, judge checked him , indignantly expressed opinion improper clergyman reveal confession.

r v. gilham

the case of r v gilham (1828) 1 mood cc 186, ccr, concerned admission of evidence against prisoner of acknowledgment of guilt had been induced ministrations , words of protestant prison chaplain. acknowledgment of murder charged made prisoner jailer and, subsequently, authorities.

the catholic encyclopedia contends appears have made no acknowledgment of crime chaplain himself , question of confessional privilege did not arise.

broad v. pitt

in 1828, case of broad v. pitt 3 c&p 518, privilege of communications attorney under discussion, best cj said:

the privilege not apply clergymen since decision other day in case of gilham [supra]. i, one, never compel clergyman disclose communications made him prisoner: if chooses disclose them, shall receive them in evidence.

r v. shaw

in r v. shaw (1834) 6 c& p 392, witness had taken oath not reveal statement had been made him prisoner, ordered reveal it. , said mr. justice patteson, tried case, except counsel , attorneys, compellable reveal may have heard.

greenlaw v. king

in case of greenlaw v. king (1838) 1 beav 145, henry bickersteth, 1st baron langdale, master of rolls said:

the cases of privilege confined solicitors , clients; , stewards, parents, medical attendants, clergymen, , persons in closely confidential relation, bound disclose communications made them.

r v. griffin

in r v. griffin (1853) 6 cox cc 219, church of england workhouse chaplain called prove conversations prisoner charged child-murder whom, stated, had visited in spiritual capacity. judge, baron of exchequer sir edward hall alderson, intimated counsel thought such conversations ought not given in evidence, saying there analogy between necessity privilege in case of attorney enable legal evidence given , in case of clergyman enable spiritual assistance given. added, not lay down absolute rule: think such evidence ought not given .

the constance kent case

in 1865, murder trial of constance kent aroused number of parliamentary questions answers reaffirmed limited scope of professional privilege in england.

r v. hay

in 1860 case, catholic priest committed contempt of court failing give evidence how came allegedly stolen watch on grounds came possession way of confessional. court insisted asked plain matter of fact , not breach seal of confessional. catholic encyclopedia suggests case supports view confessional privileged.

ruthven v. de bonn

the catholic encyclopedia reports case ruthven v. de bonn, tried before mr. justice ridley , jury in 1901.

the defendant, catholic priest, having been asked general question nature of matters mentioned in sacramental confession, told judge not bound answer it. writer present in court @ hearing of trial and, far recollection serves him, understood mr. justice ridley effect judges had come mind in matter, report of trial in times of 8 february 1901, not contain such statement. learned judge said plaintiff, conducting case in person: not entitled ask questions priests ask in confessional or answers given.