Spousal Testamony against an accused :: essays research papers fc

Dating back to the sixteenth century, checkmates were not deemed to be competent to testify evidence against their spouse. The reasons were a fold simpler than they ar today. Any matchless with a perceived interest in litigation was deemed to be biased and therefore unfit to testify. Under common equity spouses ar considered to be one and the same. Since the 16th century the issue of spouses and their ability to prepare evidence against their partners has become more and more complicated. advanced(a) day courts rely more on preserving the sanctity of the marriage than preserving the incompetency standard.The ability to block spousal testimony does not however contribute to all couples below the law. Those in common law relationships are not considered to be one and the same and these spousess are able to give testimony about events that occurred during the relationship. Ultimately, because the issue falls under common law the dubiousness of whether a husband or wife to ca n be compelled to give evidence against there spouse was at the justices discretion. Most justices are more likely to compel spousal testimony in cases of madness and domestic abuse. The majority of these rudenesss are kick inted on a one on one basis with either no one to recover the abuse, or a child incapable of being called as a witness. The testimony evidence of the spouse is often the only proof that an offence occurred. In R. v. McGinty, legal expert McLachlin concluded that competence included compellability and added a young policy dimension to the analysis. She observed policy interests favoured compelling testimony in cases of domestic violence. Competence without compellability would more likely contribute to family discord than prevent it. In the matter of appearance, she noted that fair-minded persons generally find it abhorrent that persons who commit crimes go un-prosecuted. The states duty to protect the safety of its citizens, underlies the good word compete nce in cases of violence against a spouse, also dictates that the spouse be complellable. Fundamentally the main factors facing a Justice in their conclusiveness is the matter of public safety and the harmony of the marriage. Compelling a spouse to testify against their partner is in direct conflict with that ideology. Therefore split or legally separated couples do not fall under this category. In R. v. Bailey it was determined that spousal incompetence does not survive divorce. Justice Morden observed that The modern policy justification for the rule in question is that is supports marital harmony.