Central Criminal Court Act 1856

Central Criminal Court Act 1856
Act of Parliament
	Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long title	An Act to empower the Court of Queen's Bench to order certain Offenders to be tried at the Central Criminal Court.
Citation	19 & 20 Vict. c. 16
Territorial extent	England and Wales
Dates
Royal assent	11 April 1856
Status: Current legislation
History of passage through Parliament

The Central Criminal Court Act 1856[note 1] (19 & 20 Vict. c. 16), originally known as the Trial of Offences Act 1856 and popularly known as Palmer's Act, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act allowed a crime committed outside the City of London or the County of Middlesex to be tried at the Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, rather than locally.[1]

The Act was passed in direct and urgent response to anxieties that doctor and accused murderer William Palmer would not be able to have a fair trial at the assize court in his native Staffordshire because of public revulsion at the allegations. By conducting Palmer's trial at a neutral venue, there could be no appeal for a retrial on the basis that the court and jury had been prejudiced against the defendant.[1]

However, an alternative hypothesis is that Palmer was a popular figure in Rugeley and would not have been found guilty by a Staffordshire jury: the implication being that the trial location was moved for political reasons so as to secure a guilty verdict. Lord Chief Justice Campbell—the senior judge at Palmer’s trial—suggested in his autobiography that, had Palmer been tried at Stafford Assizes, he would have been found not guilty.[2]

Notes

Short Title authorised by the Short Titles Act 1896

References

Knott, George H. (1912). The Trial of William Palmer. Notable English Trials. Edinburgh and London: William Hodge & Co. p. 12. Retrieved 21 August 2018. The trial marked an important step in English criminal procedure. In the ordinary course Palmer would have been tried by an Assize Court in Staffordshire, but the prejudice against him there was so strong that it was felt he would not have a fair trial. An Act was therefore passed, the 19 Vict. cap. 16, for enabling the trial to take place at the Central Criminal Court in London. Since then that Act has been available in any similar circumstances.
Lewis, Dave (1 May 2003). "The 'Palmer Act' allows trial to be in London". William Palmer: The infamous Rugely poisoner. Retrieved 21 August 2018. However another version is that he was very popular and would not have been found guilty had he been tried locally. Lord Justice Campbell who was the senior judge at Palmer's trial suggested in his autobiography that, had Palmer been tried at Stafford Assizes, he would have been found not guilty. This contradicts the stories in the press that the trial was switched to London because in Staffordshire people were so biased against Palmer that he would have automatically been found guilty.

Bibliography

Davenport-Hines, R. (2004) "Palmer, William [the Rugeley Poisoner] (1824–1856)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, accessed 20 July 2007 (subscription required)

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[sta-1] Short Title authorised by the Short Titles Act 1896

[knott-2] Knott, George H. (1912). The Trial of William Palmer. Notable English Trials. Edinburgh and London: William Hodge & Co. p. 12. Retrieved 21 August 2018. The trial marked an important step in English criminal procedure. In the ordinary course Palmer would have been tried by an Assize Court in Staffordshire, but the prejudice against him there was so strong that it was felt he would not have a fair trial. An Act was therefore passed, the 19 Vict. cap. 16, for enabling the trial to take place at the Central Criminal Court in London. Since then that Act has been available in any similar circumstances.

[3] Lewis, Dave (1 May 2003). "The 'Palmer Act' allows trial to be in London". William Palmer: The infamous Rugely poisoner. Retrieved 21 August 2018. However another version is that he was very popular and would not have been found guilty had he been tried locally. Lord Justice Campbell who was the senior judge at Palmer's trial suggested in his autobiography that, had Palmer been tried at Stafford Assizes, he would have been found not guilty. This contradicts the stories in the press that the trial was switched to London because in Staffordshire people were so biased against Palmer that he would have automatically been found guilty.