Opinion—Re F. E. Maybrick
“Having carefully considered the facts stated in the elaborate case submitted to us by Messrs. Lumley & Lumley, and the law applicable to the matter, we are clearly of opinion that there is no mode by which in this case a new trial or a ‘venire de novo’ can be obtained, nor can the prisoner be brought up on a ‘habeas corpus,’ with the view to retrying the issue of her innocence or guilt.
“We say this notwithstanding the case of Regina vs. Scarfe (17 Q. B., 238, 5; Cox, C. C., 243; 2 Den., C. C., 281).
“We are of opinion that in English criminal procedure there is no possibility of procuring a rehearing in the case of felony where a verdict has been found by a properly constituted jury upon an indictment which is correct in form. This rule is, in our opinion, absolute, unless circumstances have transpired, and have been entered upon the record, which, when there appearing, would invalidate the tribunal and reduce the trial to a nullity by reason of its not having been before a properly constituted tribunal. None of the matters proposed to be proved go to this length.
“We think it right to add that there are many matters stated in the case, not merely with reference to the evidence at and the incidents of the trial, but suggesting new facts, which would be matters proper for the grave consideration of a Court of Criminal Appeal, if such a tribunal existed in this country.
(Signed)
“Charles Russell, Q.C.
“I. Fletcher Moulton, Q.C.
“Harry Bookin Poland, Q.C.
“Reginald Smith, Q.C.
“Lincoln’s Inn, 12th April, 1892.”
This opinion was based upon the following points, presented by Messrs. Lumley & Lumley: