Inquest question

[Monty]

My personal experience is that witness wait outside to be called.

Once their testimony is given, they have the option to remain or leave.

Monty
😊

[Errata]

I congratulate you from picking up on this Pierre. I did phrase my post in a certain way because at the back of my mind I had a strange feeling I had read somewhere that witnesses needed to stay in court after giving evidence.

In response to your question I've gone back through my notes and I've finally found what I was thinking of. It comes from the 1957 edition of 'Jervis on the Duties of Coroners' (the ninth edition by W.B Purchase and H.W. Wollaston). I hesitate to post it because it could be terribly misleading in respect of the position in 1888 but, then again, it might reflect earlier practice.

Here are what my notes say (being a transcription by me from the text of the book):

The actual order in calling the witnesses lies entirely with the discretion of the coroner.

It should be a general rule in all but the simplest non-jury case that witnesses with certain exceptions mentioned below should remain out of court until they are called to give evidence; after giving evidence they should remain in court.

But it is not usual to apply this rule of exclusion to any formal, professional or scientific witness.

It is the privilege of the jurors, at any time during the investigation, to call back before them any witness who has been examined, and to ask any questions that may suggest itself to their minds as elucidating of their enquiry.

I stress that this is a reflection of the position in the 1950s and such wording did not appear in the nineteenth century editions of Jervis.

Holy Hell your notes are so much more inclusive than mine.

[GUT]

The last exchange between Pierre and David has given rise to a thought.

If it was required to a witness, who had given evidence to remain AT Court, either in or nearby, isn't that one hell of an incentive for people like Hutch and Cross to try and avoid being called on till the lat possible moment, and could go at least part way to explaining what is often seen as suspicious behaviour.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Do you know if they had to stay after they had given their evidence?

I congratulate you from picking up on this Pierre. I did phrase my post in a certain way because at the back of my mind I had a strange feeling I had read somewhere that witnesses needed to stay in court after giving evidence.

In response to your question I've gone back through my notes and I've finally found what I was thinking of. It comes from the 1957 edition of 'Jervis on the Duties of Coroners' (the ninth edition by W.B Purchase and H.W. Wollaston). I hesitate to post it because it could be terribly misleading in respect of the position in 1888 but, then again, it might reflect earlier practice.

Here are what my notes say (being a transcription by me from the text of the book):

The actual order in calling the witnesses lies entirely with the discretion of the coroner.

It should be a general rule in all but the simplest non-jury case that witnesses with certain exceptions mentioned below should remain out of court until they are called to give evidence; after giving evidence they should remain in court.

But it is not usual to apply this rule of exclusion to any formal, professional or scientific witness.

It is the privilege of the jurors, at any time during the investigation, to call back before them any witness who has been examined, and to ask any questions that may suggest itself to their minds as elucidating of their enquiry.

I stress that this is a reflection of the position in the 1950s and such wording did not appear in the nineteenth century editions of Jervis.

[Pierre]

I'm not sure that's relevant to what I was saying Michael. I was talking about witnesses who had been summonsed to attend at the inquest. These witnesses, I'm suggesting, did not have to sit in the courtroom, listening other witnesses, before they gave their own evidence but if they were summonsed they did need to present themselves at the inquest.

Hi David,

Do you know if they had to stay after they had given their evidence?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

For what it's worth, at the Kelly inquest we read that the witnesses sat outside the courtroom waiting to be called.
Whether this was due to lack of space within, or was the convention is hard to say.

"Without the coroner's court half a dozen wretched-looking women were sitting on half a dozen cane chairs waiting to be called;"
Pall Mall Gazette, 12 Nov. 1888.

Excellent find Jon, and hopefully that answers Pierre's question.

I agree with you about lack of space as a possible reason for this arrangement

I would just add that it doesn't look like this applied to police witnesses and, indeed, we find that Inspector Spratling intervened in PC Neil's evidence on 1 September (to confirm that the road at Bucks Row had been examined) whereas Spratling didn't give evidence himself until 3 September.

[Wickerman]

For what it's worth, at the Kelly inquest we read that the witnesses sat outside the courtroom waiting to be called.
Whether this was due to lack of space within, or was the convention is hard to say.

"Without the coroner's court half a dozen wretched-looking women were sitting on half a dozen cane chairs waiting to be called;"
Pall Mall Gazette, 12 Nov. 1888.

[David Orsam]

My point was that without a mandate for presenting the statement in the presence of other witnesses, George could have given his statement at the Inquest but in private. Thats what I was alluding to.

I see. In which case, that definitely has no connection with the point I was making.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm not sure that's relevant to what I was saying Michael. I was talking about witnesses who had been summonsed to attend at the inquest. These witnesses, I'm suggesting, did not have to sit in the courtroom, listening other witnesses, before they gave their own evidence but if they were summonsed they did need to present themselves at the inquest.

My point was that without a mandate for presenting the statement in the presence of other witnesses, George could have given his statement at the Inquest but in private. Thats what I was alluding to. I understand that you prioritized the summons element, so I get your point.

[David Orsam]

This is a very intelligent thing to say. Thank you, David.

No more or less intelligent than my post #7 - and essentially the same point in reverse - but you didn't seem to like that one.

[David Orsam]

Ive researched this question too David and it appears that you are correct with the above statement. There was no such mandate. Which means that technically George Hutchinson need not have waietd until after the session cessation to come forward with his remarks if he had hoped to avoid being confronted with or by other witnesses. One line of thought on his late appearance has been that he tried to avoid being seen, or challenged, by other witnesses.

I'm not sure that's relevant to what I was saying Michael. I was talking about witnesses who had been summonsed to attend at the inquest. These witnesses, I'm suggesting, did not have to sit in the courtroom, listening other witnesses, before they gave their own evidence but if they were summonsed they did need to present themselves at the inquest.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;374050]

I should add that I'm equally not aware of any rule that said witnesses at an inquest had to sit in the courtroom to listen to the evidence of others prior to them giving evidence. No doubt many witnesses were not interested in sitting in the courtroom and preferred to have a cup of tea or whatever until they were called. Different coroners may also have had different practices as Rosella mentions.

This is a very intelligent thing to say. Thank you, David.

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

I should add that I'm equally not aware of any rule that said witnesses at an inquest had to sit in the courtroom to listen to the evidence of others prior to them giving evidence. [/I]"

Ive researched this question too David and it appears that you are correct with the above statement. There was no such mandate. Which means that technically George Hutchinson need not have waietd until after the session cessation to come forward with his remarks if he had hoped to avoid being confronted with or by other witnesses. One line of thought on his late appearance has been that he tried to avoid being seen, or challenged, by other witnesses.

[David Orsam]

I should add that I'm equally not aware of any rule that said witnesses at an inquest had to sit in the courtroom to listen to the evidence of others prior to them giving evidence. No doubt many witnesses were not interested in sitting in the courtroom and preferred to have a cup of tea or whatever until they were called. Different coroners may also have had different practices as Rosella mentions.

I'm reminded of a passage from my own book, 'The Camden Town Murder Mystery' (p.3), relating to 1907:

"...the senior magistrate at Marlborough Street Police Court made an order that, to prevent collusion, police officers would no longer be allowed to sit in his courtroom and listen to their colleagues give evidence in the witness box before they gave their own evidence. Shortly after this, the Coroner for West London, Mr Luxmore Drew, made an identical ruling during an inquest in Kensington on a man who had died in a police station after having been arrested for being drunk and incapable."

[GUT]

I know it was sad that Cross was recognised by Mizen when he (Cross) was bought in.

Sounds like they were kept outside in that instance.