Taking the oath wearing gloves -- prohibited?
Ian Chard
I recently unearthed an episode of the series 'Crown Court' where a
witness was instructed to remove her gloves before taking the oath. The
judge said 'you cannot take the oath wearing gloves'.
Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
- Ian
--
Ian Chard, Systems Architect | E: ian....@bodleian.ox.ac.uk
Bodleian Libraries | T: 80587 / (01865) 280587
University of Oxford | F: (01865) 242287
The Todal
> Hi,
>
> I recently unearthed an episode of the series 'Crown Court' where a
> witness was instructed to remove her gloves before taking the oath.
> The judge said 'you cannot take the oath wearing gloves'.
>
> Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
>
Doesn't say anything in Archbold (the criminal lawyer's bible) about
removing gloves. Did the judge bang his gavel? If so, you know that the
scriptwriter is not to be trusted :)
John Briggs
> Hi,
>
> I recently unearthed an episode of the series 'Crown Court' where a
> witness was instructed to remove her gloves before taking the oath. The
> judge said 'you cannot take the oath wearing gloves'.
>
> Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
Wasn't 'Crown Court' fiction?
--
John Briggs
Sara
John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
IIRC the cases were invented and everyone except the jury were actors.
--
Sara
Spring is here, the birds are still singing. Lovely.
Reentrant
>
> I recently unearthed an episode of the series 'Crown Court' where a
> witness was instructed to remove her gloves before taking the oath. The
> judge said 'you cannot take the oath wearing gloves'.
>
> Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
>
> - Ian
>
oath wouldn't count :-)
--
Reentrant
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>> Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
>>
>
>Doesn't say anything in Archbold (the criminal lawyer's bible) about
>removing gloves. Did the judge bang his gavel? If so, you know that the
>scriptwriter is not to be trusted :)
There seems to be something symbolic about gloves. Some interesting
reading here http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Glove
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
Adam Funk
What else would the judge do with the gavel?
(yes, I know, no gavel)
Ste
Point it in a threatening manner?
John Briggs
Possibly - but what does he do with the gavel?
--
John Briggs
sid
> In article<95s307...@mid.individual.net>, nos...@nospam.net says...
>
> Janet
What do they do with people who have no hands, like Abu Hamza al-Masri?
Wm...
uk.legal.moderated sid <bl...@blank.com>
>On 15/06/11 18:35, Janet wrote:
>> In article<95s307...@mid.individual.net>, nos...@nospam.net says...
>>>
>>> On 15/06/2011 15:55, Ian Chard wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I recently unearthed an episode of the series 'Crown Court' where a
>>>> witness was instructed to remove her gloves before taking the oath. The
>>>> judge said 'you cannot take the oath wearing gloves'.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
>>>>
>>>> - Ian
>>>>
>>> If you're wearing mittens you might have your fingers crossed so the
>>> oath wouldn't count :-)
>>
>> So what happens if they take off the glove and it's a prosthetic hand?
>What do they do with people who have no hands, like Abu Hamza al-Masri?
You're thinking of gravel.
I'll get me coat.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
gareth erskine-jones
He's unlikely to swear on a bible anyway.
Ian Chard
Heh, no gavel thankfully. I've never had cause to be in a court, but
the programme does have an understated, realistic feel to it. Very
pedestrian compared to modern courtroom drama.
I'm not sure if I'm permitted to post a link here as it may still be
under copyright, but a search on a well-known video website for 'crown
court peanuts' should turn it up for those interested.
- Ian
Ian Chard
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:10:02 +0100, "The Todal"<deadm...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't say anything in Archbold (the criminal lawyer's bible) about
>> removing gloves. Did the judge bang his gavel? If so, you know that the
>> scriptwriter is not to be trusted :)
>
>
> There seems to be something symbolic about gloves. Some interesting
> reading here http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Glove
I also found a piece that appeared in the 'London Truth', copied by the
New York Times in 1887, beginning
'It has hitherto been considered an indispensable part of the
hocus-pocus of taking an oath in a court of justice that the witness
should remove his glove, if he happens to wear such an article, before
taking the book in his hand.'
- Ian
martin
> I also found a piece that appeared in the 'London Truth', copied by the
> New York Times in 1887, beginning
>
> 'It has hitherto been considered an indispensable part of the
> hocus-pocus of taking an oath in a court of justice that the witness
> should remove his glove, if he happens to wear such an article, before
> taking the book in his hand.'
Would it make any difference if you affirmed instead? I don't know, just
askin' like
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On 15/06/2011 4:10 PM, The Todal wrote:
>> Ian Chard wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I recently unearthed an episode of the series 'Crown Court' where a
>>> witness was instructed to remove her gloves before taking the oath.
>>> The judge said 'you cannot take the oath wearing gloves'.
>>>
>>> Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't say anything in Archbold (the criminal lawyer's bible) about
>> removing gloves. Did the judge bang his gavel? If so, you know that the
>> scriptwriter is not to be trusted :)
>
>Heh, no gavel thankfully. I've never had cause to be in a court, but
>the programme does have an understated, realistic feel to it. Very
>pedestrian compared to modern courtroom drama.
Even so, it's still clearly dramatised rather than being realistic. It has
the feel of a 70s soap opera (which in a sense, it was). It is, on the
whole, procedurally accurate though.
>I'm not sure if I'm permitted to post a link here as it may still be
>under copyright, but a search on a well-known video website for 'crown
>court peanuts' should turn it up for those interested.
It does, indeed.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
martin
You swine!
I kind of draws you in doesn't it. A just verdict I though lol Now back
to work. Arghhh
GB
If you affirm, you don't need to hold a book at all.
--
Murphy's ultimate law is that if something that could go wrong doesn't,
it turns out that it would have been better if it had gone wrong.
martin
> martin wrote:
>> On 16/06/2011 11:00, Ian Chard wrote:
>>
>>> I also found a piece that appeared in the 'London Truth', copied by
>>> the New York Times in 1887, beginning
>>>
>>> 'It has hitherto been considered an indispensable part of the
>>> hocus-pocus of taking an oath in a court of justice that the witness
>>> should remove his glove, if he happens to wear such an article,
>>> before taking the book in his hand.'
>>
>> Would it make any difference if you affirmed instead? I don't know,
>> just askin' like
>
> If you affirm, you don't need to hold a book at all.
The silly sausage who fell over should have affirmed then
sid
but is a hook on a koran acceptable?
John Briggs
>> Ian Chard wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I recently unearthed an episode of the series 'Crown Court' where a
>>> witness was instructed to remove her gloves before taking the oath.
>>> The judge said 'you cannot take the oath wearing gloves'.
>>>
>>> Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't say anything in Archbold (the criminal lawyer's bible) about
>> removing gloves. Did the judge bang his gavel? If so, you know that the
>> scriptwriter is not to be trusted :)
>
> Heh, no gavel thankfully. I've never had cause to be in a court, but the
> programme does have an understated, realistic feel to it. Very
> pedestrian compared to modern courtroom drama.
That's probably because it was done on the cheap. I remember seeing the
set at the time in the Granada studios.
--
John Briggs
Humbug
<ian....@bodleian.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I recently unearthed an episode of the series 'Crown Court' where a
>witness was instructed to remove her gloves before taking the oath. The
>judge said 'you cannot take the oath wearing gloves'.
>
>Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
Blimey!
I remember watching Crown Court in the seventies when (having a shiny
new bicycle) I came home from school at lunchtime, and I didn't think
that it was real even then.
Was it ever shown at any other time?
--
Humbug
Humbug
He might be an auctioneer in his spare time.
--
Humbug
"This isn't a proper argument!"
Humbug
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:45:12 +0100, Ian Chard put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>On 15/06/2011 4:10 PM, The Todal wrote:
>>> Ian Chard wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I recently unearthed an episode of the series 'Crown Court' where a
>>>> witness was instructed to remove her gloves before taking the oath.
>>>> The judge said 'you cannot take the oath wearing gloves'.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't say anything in Archbold (the criminal lawyer's bible) about
>>> removing gloves. Did the judge bang his gavel? If so, you know that the
>>> scriptwriter is not to be trusted :)
>>
>>Heh, no gavel thankfully. I've never had cause to be in a court, but
>>the programme does have an understated, realistic feel to it. Very
>>pedestrian compared to modern courtroom drama.
>
>Even so, it's still clearly dramatised rather than being realistic. It has
>the feel of a 70s soap opera (which in a sense, it was). It is, on the
>whole, procedurally accurate though.
ISTR, BICBW, that the jury were not actors and actually gave a verdict
based upon what they had seen and heard.
--
Humbug
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:05:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:45:12 +0100, Ian Chard put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>
>>>On 15/06/2011 4:10 PM, The Todal wrote:
>>>> Ian Chard wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I recently unearthed an episode of the series 'Crown Court' where a
>>>>> witness was instructed to remove her gloves before taking the oath.
>>>>> The judge said 'you cannot take the oath wearing gloves'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't say anything in Archbold (the criminal lawyer's bible) about
>>>> removing gloves. Did the judge bang his gavel? If so, you know that the
>>>> scriptwriter is not to be trusted :)
>>>
>>>Heh, no gavel thankfully. I've never had cause to be in a court, but
>>>the programme does have an understated, realistic feel to it. Very
>>>pedestrian compared to modern courtroom drama.
>>
>>Even so, it's still clearly dramatised rather than being realistic. It has
>>the feel of a 70s soap opera (which in a sense, it was). It is, on the
>>whole, procedurally accurate though.
>
>ISTR, BICBW, that the jury were not actors and actually gave a verdict
>based upon what they had seen and heard.
The foreman was an actor, because he had a speaking part, albeit small,
when delivering the verdict and Equity rules at the time insisted that this
could only be done by one of their memebers. But yes, the rest of the jury
were ordinary members of the public, and even the one actor among them was
not privy to the scripts and directions given to the rest of the cast, and
they did indeed make their verdict based on what they had seen and heard.
Adam Funk
Good one!
Janitor of Lunacy
> In article <0W3Kp.7605$z96....@newsfe20.ams2>,
> John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15/06/2011 15:55, Ian Chard wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I recently unearthed an episode of the series 'Crown Court' where a
>>> witness was instructed to remove her gloves before taking the oath.
>>> The judge said 'you cannot take the oath wearing gloves'.
>>>
>>> Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
>>
>> Wasn't 'Crown Court' fiction?
>
> IIRC the cases were invented and everyone except the jury were actors.
Some of the cases were based on recent real ones, however; I remember a
dramatisation of a prosecution in which the defendant had been acquitted of
some offence and then charged with perjury for lying to obtain his
acquittal- the Court of Appeal in that case ruled it an abuse of process as
the prosecution were attempting a "second bite at the cherry" by doing so.
Can't remember what happened in the the TV version, however.
JoL
Janitor of Lunacy
The Oaths Act 1978 (a consolidating statute) is silent on the point:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/19
but since the general tenor of that Act from its wording (e.g. "without
question") would seem to imply that minor details are irrelevant to the
validity of the oath.
*I'll omit the usual reminiscences about Chinese witnesses snuffing out
candles, breaking plates and strangling cockerels, and the problem with the
Muslim witness and the "other Koran".
JoL
Humbug
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
OTOH, the judge, the barristers, and all of the witnesses were actors.
Did the scriptwriters base it on real cases?
--
Humbug
Humbug
I was involved in a case a couple of years ago where the proceedings
were severely delayed because a number of witnesses refused to swear
on the Koran.
The case eventually continued with the witnesses "affirming", and in
some cases having the services of an interpreter.
Every one of them lied in their testimonies.
The magistrates obviously knew that, but there were no repercussions
AFAIK.
--
Humbug
Wm...
uk.legal.moderated Humbug <hum...@tofee.net>
Laydeeeeze an' gennulmen, it is sentencing time for John "Reprehensible"
Jones. Who'll bid first?
I'm getting ten years from the CPS ...
Five years from the defence ...
Death sentence from the Daily Mail ...
Crime of passion from a local paper ...
<fx hushed voice over from commentator: it looks like the defence are
going to make another bid>
I'm getting two years plus an exclusive news contract and book deal from
a red top, can anyone better that?
Going ... going ...
Daily Mail? Hung drawn and quartered ... non-exclusive contract ...
etc.
Judith
>Hi,
>
>I recently unearthed an episode of the series 'Crown Court' where a
>witness was instructed to remove her gloves before taking the oath. The
>judge said 'you cannot take the oath wearing gloves'.
>
>Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
>
>- Ian
>
>--
>Ian Chard, Systems Architect | E: ian....@bodleian.ox.ac.uk
>Bodleian Libraries | T: 80587 / (01865) 280587
>University of Oxford | F: (01865) 242287
Do you have access to a good library - they may be able to help.
Ian Chard
I work for a good library, so yes :) I did ask around the law library
but no-one seemed to have heard of this.
John Briggs
> On 28/06/11 11:25, Judith wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:55:09 +0100, Ian Chard<ian....@bodleian.ox.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I recently unearthed an episode of the series 'Crown Court' where a
>>> witness was instructed to remove her gloves before taking the oath. The
>>> judge said 'you cannot take the oath wearing gloves'.
>>>
>>> Is there any statutory basis for this, or is it convention?
>>>
>>> - Ian
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ian Chard, Systems Architect | E: ian....@bodleian.ox.ac.uk
>>> Bodleian Libraries | T: 80587 / (01865) 280587
>>> University of Oxford | F: (01865) 242287
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you have access to a good library - they may be able to help.
>
> I work for a good library, so yes :) I did ask around the law library
> but no-one seemed to have heard of this.
Probably because they are not scriptwriters.
--
John Briggs