Spousal Testamony against an accused :: essays research papers fc

Dating back to the sixteenth century, fellows were not deemed to be skilled to testify examine against their spouse. The reasons were a lot simpler than they be today. Anyone with a perceive interest in litigation was deemed to be biased and on that pointfore mentally ill to testify. Under common law spouses are considered to be one and the kindred. Since the 16th century the let out of spouses and their ability to give evidence against their partners has become much and more than complicated. Modern day courts rely more on preserving the sanctity of the marriage than preserving the incompetence standard.The ability to block marriage testimony does not however apply to all couples under 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 question of whether a husband or wife to can be o bligeled to give evidence against there spouse was at the justices discretion. Most justices are more likely to compel espousal testimony in cases of power and domestic abuse. The majority of these offences are committed on a one on one buttocks with either no one to witness the abuse, or a peasant 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, Justice McLachlin think that competence included compellability and added a new insurance policy dimension to the analysis. She find 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 just persons generally find it abhorrent that persons who commit crimes go un-prosecuted. The states duty to protect the preventative of its citizens, underlies the testimonial competence in cases of violence against a spouse, also dictates that the spouse be complellable. Fundamentally the main factors approach a Justice in their decision 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 divorced or legally unconnected 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.