Text-book of forensic medicine and toxicology

by R. J. M. Buchanan

Prosecution.—There was no Public Prosecutor in England until some years ago, when an Act was passed authorising the appointment of such an official, who should undertake the duty of prosecuting in certain and specific cases of public importance, and in districts where the appointment might be agreed upon. In ordinary circumstances it has usually been left to the person against whom a crime has been committed to prosecute the offender.

Magistrates‘ Court.—In the Magistrates‘ Court of Petty Sessions, the proceedings are for the purpose of investigating as to the culpability or non-culpability of a person accused of some criminal act, or criminal negligence.

In this Court the accused person must be present, as the inquiry is relative to his guilt or innocence. Witnesses in this Court may be examined and cross-examined by counsel. A magisterial investigation cannot take place if no arrest have been made. The magistrate may deal summarily with cases of simple assault and such-like of minor import, but when the case is of a more serious nature, and in suspected manslaughter or murder, the accused person is committed to a superior Court for trial, such as the Court of Quarter Sessions, the Assize Court or, in London, the Central Criminal Court, all witnesses, medical or lay, being bound over to appear and give evidence. The summons to the Assizes is called a subpœna, and all witnesses receiving the same, when accompanied with reasonable travelling expenses, are bound to obey it.

Assizes.—The Assizes comprise two Courts, the Crown Court and the Civil Court. A separate judge presides over each. In the former only cases of a criminal nature are tried; in the latter suits are tried between two parties. Medical practitioners may be called upon to give evidence in either Court, according to the nature of the case in which they are directly concerned.

Prior to a case being investigated by a judge and petty jury, it has to come before the grand jury. This jury decides whether the case is a proper one to proceed to trial.

The grand jury hear the evidence of such witnesses as they think fit, apart from counsel. Should the grand jury consider the case one for trial, they return a “true bill,” and it goes before the judge and petty jury; if not, they “cut the bill,” and the accused is discharged.

Medical witnesses may be called upon, when under subpœna, to give evidence before the grand jury.

The Crown Court of Assize consists of a judge and a sworn jury of twelve men, called the petty jury. The latter hear the evidence of witnesses, and are guided by the summing up of the judge. They deliver a verdict after consideration of the evidence by which the accused person is found guilty or not guilty. The judge, after receiving the verdict, allots such punishment as he considers just. In certain cases the prisoner when convicted may appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

In the Assize Courts only barristers can plead; in the Magistrates‘ Courts of Petty Sessions, solicitors or barristers may plead.

In the Courts of Assize the witnesses are subject to the following routine of examination. First, Examination-in-chief: this the witness undergoes at the hands of the barrister who is pleading on behalf of the party by whom the witness is called. In this examination such questions are put to the witness as may elicit answers conveying to the judge and jury a clear account of all the witness knows with regard to the case. After the examination-in-chief, the counsel of the opposite side subjects the witness to cross-examination, in such a way as to shake the evidence given by the witness during his examination in chief in points which would weigh against the prospects of his client. It is during cross-examination that a medical witness may be subjected to questions which suggest answers capable of a different interpretation from those he had previously given. After cross-examination, the counsel for the party upon whose side the witness appears subjects the latter to re-examination, if he consider it necessary, during which he endeavours to clear up any doubtful points in the evidence given by the witness during cross-examination, with the purpose of eliciting an explanation of their meaning.