A right to insurance has existed in English law since the passage of the Quaker Act of 1695 (a law according to which the solemn confirmation and declaration of the people, called Quakers, must be accepted instead of an oath in the usual form; 7 & 8 Will. 3 c. 34) was passed. The text of the statement read: « I A.B. proclaims in the presence of Almighty God the testimony of the truth of what I say. » [1] The right to make a declaration is now enshrined in the Oaths Act, 1978, c. 19,[2], which prescribes the following form: « I solemnly, sincerely and sincerely declare and certify » and then move to the words of the statutory oath, omitting all words of curse or call to testify. [2] The Court of Appeal accepted that the judge had good intentions, but used the test of « the impression of this exchange on the fair spirit postulated by the informed observer by means of the legal test ». The court was certain that such an observer would conclude that the judge had emphasized that the value of the evidence « would be greater if it was made after the oath to the Koran and not after confirmation. » « We think it was not wise for the judge to embark on this adventure. Once he started doing it, we think he should have finished it much sooner than he did.
The appeal against the confiscation order issued at the end of the hearing was allowed. The judge did not stop there. He asked Mr. Sadiq what he understood from what he had just done. « Let the evidence I give only concern the truth and nothing but the truth, » he replied. « Yes, » the judge agreed, « and is there any difficulty you have in promising this when you hold the Quran in your hand? » Mr. Saddq said you have to be clean to do it. The judge then offered him the opportunity to « perform. if you want to take an oath on the Qur`an. » After several more discussions, the judge stopped for the time being. The applicant`s lawyer then asked his lay client whether he was prepared to tell the truth, to tell the truth. The judge added: « The only point about a witness taking an oath is that he must make sure that the witness is actually telling the truth and feels compelled to do so, and not just because he has given the testimony that was given, but because if he has faith, there is greater authority.
Who could actually consider his position if he didn`t tell the truth. That`s the goal. This oath must be taken by any person in a juvenile or family court and by a child in another court. A child under the age of 14 must testify without taking an oath in criminal proceedings. If you are summoned to testify in criminal proceedings, you will be asked to take an oath or confirm that you will tell the truth in court. You have no right to ignore or pay special attention to an instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may share with you. You cannot substitute or follow your own idea or opinion about what the law is or should be. It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences.
However, you should not read in these instructions or anything else that I have said or made any suggestion as to what your judgment should be. It`s up to you. The reason for such a right is illustrated by R. v. William Brayn (1678). William Brayn was accused of stealing a horse from the Quaker Ambros Galloway. Brayn pleaded « not guilty. » One witness said the horse belonged to Ambros Galloway, and another witness said he [probably Galloway] bought it from Brayn. As Galloway was a Quaker, he did not want to swear « for conscience » and therefore could not bear witness.
The court ordered the jury to find Brayn « not guilty » for lack of evidence and convicted the Quaker « as a crime watchman » for « refusing to take an oath to testify for the king. » [3] In law, an insurance is a solemn declaration granted to those who, for reasons of conscience, refuse to take an oath. An insurance policy has exactly the same legal effect as an oath, but it is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath; It is therefore legally binding, but is not considered a religious oath. Some religious minorities have beliefs that allow them to make legally binding promises, but prohibit them from taking an oath before a deity. In addition, many refuse to take a religious oath because they believe it would be worthless or inappropriate, especially in secular courts. In some jurisdictions, a declaration can only be made if such a reason is given. An assertion, which has existed in English law since the Quaker Act 1965, is a solemn and formal declaration that the declaration to be made is true. The statement contains no reference to God. It is a secular promise that can be made by: According to the French Code of Criminal Procedure, all jurors must take an oath individually to the following message from the presiding judge: (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a declaration shall read as follows: — The issue of oath versus affirmation was raised at the beginning of the hearing of the respondent`s evidence in R v Naaem Saddiq [2010] EWCA Crim 1962. The events in question occurred three days before the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Majid case. The problem arose during a hearing on epileptic seizures in a drug case.
When the complainant took the witness stand, he said he would answer in the affirmative. The judge intervened and asked him if he preferred to take an oath to the Koran. Mr. Saddiq said no. « Is there a problem? » the judge asked. When the complainant said he did not like to touch the holy book, the judge said, « But your testimony on condition of an oath taken in front of your holy book may carry a little more weight, I do not know. This is something you might like to do if you feel able to do it. Again, the witness said he would answer in the affirmative. The judge continued: « I`m just trying to understand what difficulties you have when you take the oath. This is the proof that you want me to accept, and you may feel that you have more weight over what you say if you actually take it from the Qur`an. For the third time, the witness refused to be sworn in.
He was then allowed to say yes. For an experienced lawyer in the courtroom, a witness who takes an oath to tell the truth is the means to an end. However, sometimes the process itself can cause complications. Can a judge force a practicing Muslim to swear by the Qur`an if he chooses to affirm it instead? Some of the recent decisions show that the bank and the bar can get it wrong. In R. v. Abdul Majid [2009] EWCA Crim 2563, the applicant was convicted of intentional grievous bodily harm and dangerous driving, that is, striking and aiming at three young men with whom he had been arguing, causing injury. Although a practicing Muslim, he confirmed this at the beginning of his testimony. When the prosecutor`s lawyer cross-examined him, he told him that he was a religiously practicing Muslim and asked him why he had not taken an oath to the holy book. The Court of Appeal found that this was an « unnecessary line of cross-examination » and « inappropriate » that placed both the accused and his counsel « in a difficult and unnecessary position » since the latter was forced to intervene, and therefore « for a jury that is not informed in the course of a trial », it would appear that defence counsel « attempts to: to save his client from an unfavourable position. » Defence counsel did intervene.
The case was resolved by the defendant taking an oath to the Quran in the middle of his testimony and swearing that what he said was true. The judge « tightened » the point of his summary by dealing with it and focusing it on the fact that the accused was a man of good character.