Ex officio oath

Last updated

The ex officio oath developed in the first half of the 17th century (1600 to 1650), and was used as a form of coercion, persecution, [1] and forcible self-incrimination in the religious trials of that era. It took the form of a religious oath made by the accused prior to questioning by the Star Chamber, to answer truthfully all questions that might be asked.[ citation needed ] It gave rise to what became known as the cruel trilemma [2] where the accused would find themselves trapped between a breach of religious oath (taken extremely seriously in that era, a mortal sin, [2] and perjury), contempt of court for silence, or self-incrimination. The name derives from the questioner putting the accused on oath ex officio , meaning by virtue of his office or position.

Contents

Outcry against this practice (particularly in the trials of John Lilburne ("Freeborn John") around 1630–1649) led to the establishment of the right to not incriminate oneself in common law. This was the direct precursor of similar rights in modern law, including the right to silence and non-self-incrimination in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The right itself appears as item 16 in the Levellers Agreement of the Free People of England (1649) [3] and first appeared in US law in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties and the Connecticut Code of the same era. The Star Chamber itself, as a judicial body, was abolished by Parliament as part of the Habeas Corpus Act 1640.

Early history

During the Middle Ages the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts was limited by a 14th century statute called Articuli Cleri, while the later Prohibitio formata de statuto Articuli cleri, also during the reign of Edward II, specified the exclusive jurisdiction of the King's Courts. [4] [5]

Leonard Levy wrote in Origins of the Fifth Amendment that self-incriminating oaths were banned by statute, but Henry A. Kelly noted the limited jurisdictional scope of the statute only limited the oath to matrimonial and testamentary cases. [6] According to the Chronica Majora , when the king wrote to his sheriff, after an outcry from the people against the inquisitions of bishop Robert Grosseteste, instructing that no laymen should be compelled to answer under oath except in cases of matrimony or testaments, the bishop accused the king of conspiracy comparing his "audacious" behavior to events in France. [4]

John Wigmore also said the oath was still permitted: [7]

"There is no reason whatever to believe that the statute De Articulis Cleri had among its motives any animus against the church's imposition of an oath as such."

The Church continued to oppose statutory limitations being imposed upon its jurisdiction over heresy. The Suppression of Heresy Act 1400 targeting Lollardy authorized arrests and imprisonment, with cooperation between secular and ecclesiastical courts in the prosecution of heretics continuing for over a century, and including burning at the stake carried out by secular authorities when heretics refused to abjure heretical opinions as required by the laws of the church. [4]

Thomas Fuller wrote about heresy and treason during the Oldcastle Revolt: [8]

...he was not only guilty of heresy, but treason. But, by the way, it appeareth that Lollardism, then counted heresy, was made treason by statute, and on that account heresy and treason signify no more than heresy; and then heresy, according to the abusive language of that age was the best serving of God in those days.

Opposition to the clergy putting suspected heretics to question under oath continued. During the reign of Henry VII papal jurisdiction over heresy was limited by statute by the An Act abolishing diversity in opinions in 1538. [9] Mary Queen of Scots restored the papal jurisdiction over heresy, [10] until an Elizabethan statute placed ecclesiastical offices in Crown jurisdiction. [11] Several cases were reported by Coke regarding persons imprisoned by the ecclesiastical judges of the High Commission for refusal to answer them under oath. According to Coke the Common Bench released them according to habeas corpus. [4]

Privilege against self-incrimination

According to scholars of the common law the right against self-incrimination begins with opposition to punishments and penalties imposed for refusing to answer ecclesiastical judges under oath without formal charges being made. Noting inconsistences in cases reported by Edward Coke and James Dyer, E.M. Morgan wrote: [4]

All that can be safely asserted is that the common lawyers both in the second half of the 13th and all of the 14th century and under Henry VIII and Elizabeth resisted the inquisatiorial [sic] procedure of the spiritual courts, whether Romish or English, and under Elizabeth began to base their opposition chiefly upon the principle that a person could not be compelled to furnish under oath answers to charges which had not been formally made and disclosed to him, except in causes testamentary and matrimoinal. [sic]

Early examples of a codified right appears in the Levellers manifesto Agreement of the Free People of England (published 1 May 1649): "[I]t shall not be in the power of any Representative, to punish, or cause to be punished, any person or persons for refusing to answer questions against themselves in Criminall cases". [3] John Wigmore and Mary Hume Macguire [12] considered the jurisidictional conflict between common law and the ecclesiastical oath ex officio the starting point for the privilege against self-incrimination. According to Mary Hume Maguire:

We read a series of petitions from the Commons to the Crown referring to the distasteful practice of ecclesiastical courts of proving the case against the defendant by "fishing interrogatories viva voce"

The right later takes on a different meaning: based on the text of the Fifth Amendment, an accused person facing formal charges is not required to be a witness against themselves in Court.

The United States Supreme Court summarized the events of the time as part of the historical background in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona :

Perhaps the critical historical event shedding light on its [i.e., the privilege against self-incrimination] origins and evolution was the trial of one John Lilburn, a vocal anti-Stuart Leveller, who was made to take the Star Chamber Oath in 1637. The oath would have bound him to answer to all questions posed to him on any subject. He resisted the oath and declaimed the proceedings, stating: "Another fundamental right I then contended for, was, that no man's conscience ought to be racked by oaths imposed, to answer to questions concerning himself in matters criminal, or pretended to be so." On account of the Lilburn Trial, Parliament abolished the inquisitorial Court of Star Chamber and went further in giving him generous reparation. The lofty principles to which Lilburn had appealed during his trial gained popular acceptance in England. These sentiments worked their way over to the Colonies and were implanted after great struggle into the Bill of Rights. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medieval Inquisition</span> System of tribunals enforcing Catholic orthodoxy

The Medieval Inquisition was a series of Inquisitions from around 1184, including the Episcopal Inquisition (1184–1230s) and later the Papal Inquisition (1230s). The Medieval Inquisition was established in response to movements considered apostate or heretical to Roman Catholicism, in particular Catharism and Waldensians in Southern France and Northern Italy. These were the first movements of many inquisitions that would follow.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Lilburne</span> 17th-century English political activist

John Lilburne, also known as Freeborn John, was an English political Leveller before, during and after the English Civil Wars 1642–1650. He coined the term "freeborn rights", defining them as rights with which every human being is born, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or human law. In his early life he was a Puritan, though towards the end of his life he became a Quaker. His works have been cited in opinions by the United States Supreme Court.

A writ of prohibition is a writ directing a subordinate to stop doing something the law prohibits. This writ is often issued by a superior court to the lower court directing it not to proceed with a case which does not fall under its jurisdiction.

In English law, the benefit of clergy was originally a provision by which clergymen accused of a crime could claim that they were outside the jurisdiction of the secular courts and be tried instead in an ecclesiastical court under canon law. The ecclesiastical courts were generally seen as being more lenient in their prosecutions and punishments, and defendants made many efforts to claim clergy status, often on questionable or fraudulent grounds.

An ecclesiastical court, also called court Christian or court spiritual, is any of certain courts having jurisdiction mainly in spiritual or religious matters. In the Middle Ages, these courts had much wider powers in many areas of Europe than before the development of nation states. They were experts in interpreting canon law, a basis of which was the Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian, which is considered the source of the civil law legal tradition.

The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Circumspecte Agatis</span> 1285 English statute

The Statute of Circumspecte Agatis, or Circumspecte Agatis, was an English statute issued in 1285 by King Edward I. It defines the jurisdictions of Church and State, forcing church courts to confine themselves to ecclesiastical cases. This, along with the Articuli Cleri of Edward II, the Act of the 18th of Edward III (1344) and the Charter of Edward IV (1462), eventually settled this long-standing dispute.

In criminal law, self-incrimination is the act of making a statement that exposes oneself to an accusation of criminal liability or prosecution. Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; or indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of High Commission</span>

The Court of High Commission was the supreme ecclesiastical court in England, from the inception of King Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy in 1534 to 1689, with periods of time where there was no court activity, like in 1641, when Parliament disbanded the court with the Triennial Act. John Whitgift, the Archbishop of Canterbury, obtained increased powers for the court by the 1580s. He proposed and had passed the Seditious Sectaries Act 1593, making Puritanism an offence.

Richard Hunne was an English merchant tailor in the City of London during the early years of the reign of Henry VIII (1509-1547). After a dispute with his priest over his infant son's funeral, Hunne sought to use the English common law courts to challenge the church's authority. In response, church officials arrested him for trial in an ecclesiastical court on the capital charge of heresy.

The Supplication against the Ordinaries was a petition passed by the House of Commons in 1532. It was the result of grievances against Church of England prelates and the clergy. Ordinaries in this Act means a cleric, such as the diocesan bishop of an episcopal see, with ordinary jurisdiction over a specified territory.

Dame Alice Kyteler was the first recorded person condemned for witchcraft in Ireland. She fled the country to either England or Flanders, and there is no record of her after her escape from persecution. Her servant Petronilla de Meath was flogged and burned to death at the stake on 3 November 1324, after being tortured and confessing to the heretical crimes she, Kyteler, and Kyteler's followers were alleged to have committed.

In France, a cour d'assises, or Court of Assizes or Assize Court, is a criminal trial court with original and appellate limited jurisdiction to hear cases involving defendants accused of felonies, meaning crimes as defined in French law. It is the only French court that uses a jury trial.

The doctrine of priest–penitent privilege does not apply in the UK. Before the Reformation, England was a Roman Catholic country and the Seal of the Confessional had great authority in the English courts. However, the Reformation was followed by a period of, often fierce, persecution of Catholics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

Ad abolendam was a decretal and bull of Pope Lucius III, written at Verona and issued 4 November 1184. It was issued after the Council of Verona settled some jurisdictional differences between the Papacy and Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor. The document prescribes measures to uproot heresy and sparked the efforts which culminated in the Albigensian Crusade and the Inquisitions. Its chief aim was the complete abolition of Christian heresy.

Saunders v. the United Kingdom was a legal case heard by the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence as included in the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6 paragraphs 1 and 2.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Suppression of Heresy Act 1414</span> Act of the Parliament of England

The Suppression of Heresy Act 1414 was an Act of the Parliament of England. The Act made heresy an offence against the common law and temporal officers were to swear to help the spiritual officers in the suppression of heresy. Justices of the peace were given the power of inquiry; to issue an order to arrest; and to hand over the suspected heretic to the ecclesiastical court for trial.

<i>R (Green Environmental Industries Ltd) v Hertfordshire CC</i>

R v Hertfordshire CC, ex p Green Environmental Industries Ltd [2001] UKHL 11 is a UK environmental law and human rights case, concerning the interests of the public in investigating breaches of environmental law, and the right to a fair trial under European Convention on Human Rights. It held that the ability of environmental protection authorities to demand information that could potentially be self-incriminating was not the same as requiring people incriminate themselves in trials. Therefore, a company that had been found to have unlawfully stored dangerous clinical waste could be compelled to produce evidence of further breaches.

Secular arm, in ecclesiastical law, refers to the legal authority of the civil power, the State, or any lay authority, invoked by the Church to punish offenders in cases properly belonging to the jurisdiction of the Church. This was considered the remedy in cases where excommunication was deemed insufficient and that sterner measures were required to secure obedience to the law.

References

  1. ↑ Fellman, David (1979). Defendants Rights Today. University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 304–306. ISBN   978-0-299-07204-9.
  2. 1 2 Rubenfeld, Jed (2005). Revolution by Judiciary: the structure of American constitutional law. Harvard University Press. pp. 33–35. ISBN   978-0-674-01715-3.
  3. 1 2 John Lilburne; et al. (1 May 1649). An Agreement of the Free People of England .
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Morgan, E. M. "The Privilege against Self-Incrimination". Minnesota Law Review.
  5. ↑ Tudor Church Reform: The Henrician Canons of 1535 and the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum. Boydell Press/Church of England Record Society, 2000.
  6. ↑ Kelly, Henry Ansgar (2023). Criminal-Inquisitorial Trials in English Church Trials: From the Middle Ages to the Reformation. Catholic University of America Press. pp. 35–36.
  7. ↑ Wigmore JH. A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law Including the Statutes and Judicial Decisions of All Jurisdictions of the United States. Boston: Little Brown and Company; 1904
  8. ↑ Fuller, T. The church history of Britain
  9. ↑ Tanner, J.R. (1922). Tudor Constitutional Documents. Cambridge University Press. It provides a positive definition of heresy, and establishes a special procedure for the prosecution of heretics for commissions were to be issued in every diocese to the bishop and others to enquire into offences against the Act, and the commissioners were empowered to compel the attendance of accused persons before them and to try them with a jury. The effect of these two Acts taken together was to make heresy 'in great measure a secular offence' and to mitigate the severity of the older laws against it.
  10. ↑ Kelly, James Edward; McCafferty, John (2023). The Oxford History of British and Irish Catholicism, Volume I: Endings and New Beginnings, 1530-1640. Oxford University Press. p. 37. she refused to organize heresy trials until papal jurisdiction was fully restored
  11. ↑ Guy, John Alexander (1995). The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade. Cambridge University Press.
  12. ↑ See Essays in history and political theory in honor of Charles Howard McIlwain, 1967
  13. ↑ Text of the Miranda v. Arizona decision
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.