[Couriant]

What do you guys think?

Originally Posted by www.theherald.co.uk

The historic legal principle that husbands and wives cannot be forced to testify against each other in court could be swept away, with ministers announcing a consultation tomorrow on the merits of such a reform.

There is particular concern in two areas. One is where an accused marries a key witness and thus silences that testimony, and the other relates to assaults on children by a parent, where the spouse is often the only witness.

The current criminal law that witnesses cannot be forced to give evidence against their
wives or husbands, except where one is the direct victim of an offence at the hand of the other, has been extended to include civil partnerships for same-sex couples.

Cathy Jamieson, the Justice Minister, first signalled her support for closing the legal loophole in March when, pressed in parliament on "spousal compellability", she replied: "This is a complex issue, but we are sympathetic to amending the law and recognise that work needs to be done in the short term. In particular, there are some child protection issues that we want to ensure are addressed."

That month, a murder trial had collapsed at the High Court in Paisley after the accused married the main prosecution witness. William Ferrie was charged with murdering his alleged love rival, Bernard Kelly.

But by the time the case reached court, he had married the victim's former girlfriend, Senga Thomson. She then refused to give evidence against him, forcing the Crown to drop the case.

This prompted the comment by Derek Ogg, a leading defence QC: "Modern life has outpaced law in this case. If somebody marries the witness in a trial after they have been charged with the offence, they should not have the privilege of not having to give evidence."

more at link:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/64698.html

[columbo]

Hey,

There was an episode of "Law and Order: SVU" recently, guest starring Dean Cain as a serial rapist who ends up marrying his girlfriend during his trial in order to prevent her from testifying against him, and the prosecutors end up citing some precedent whereby the legal protection in question isn't applicable because the testimony of the girlfriend/wife was based on information or events that she witnessed (or had knowledge of) prior to marrying him.

Obviously law in the UK and the U.S. is different, and I don't know whether or not any of the legal stuff that the show discusses is entirely factual (I am not a lawyer), but it seemed relevant to the subject. It seems sensible (as a law).

[moonmist]

Someone better tell Mrs. Mulder this

[Couriant]

Originally Posted by columbo

Hey,

There was an episode of "Law and Order: SVU" recently, guest starring Dean Cain as a serial rapist who ends up marrying his girlfriend during his trial in order to prevent her from testifying against him, and the prosecutors end up citing some precedent whereby the legal protection in question isn't applicable because the testimony of the girlfriend/wife was based on information or events that she witnessed (or had knowledge of) prior to marrying him.

Obviously law in the UK and the U.S. is different, and I don't know whether or not any of the legal stuff that the show discusses is entirely factual (I am not a lawyer), but it seemed relevant to the subject. It seems sensible (as a law).

if i remember correctly, this also included that the wife was in a vegetative state and since he was the next of kin, he had the right to turn off the machine. Am I correct?