CORRESPONDENCE. OATH OR AFFIRMATION?

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 144, 19 June 1909, Page 9

CORRESPONDENCE. OATH OR AFFIRMATION?

TO THH KDITOB. Sir, — I have often wondered why tha Tict of affirming has failed so completely to supersede the practice of swearing in our courts of justice A slight porsonal experience of my own last week, however, has explained the matter to me. Men don't affirm, because of tho clumsy way in which the affirmation is requirod to be mado. Th© witness is called upon to I repeat the formula, clause by olause, and phrase by phrase, after the Clerk of the Court, like a little child learning its first [ lesson at its mother's knee. This is sufficiently disagreeable-. If, however, the witness happens to bo a littlo deaf, and so loses some of tho words wliich tho clerk addresses to him, (the situation is still more embarrassing. Now, theio is really no need for this annoyance at tall. Why should not the form of affirmation be .printed on a card, to be kept in court, handy for use, and tho witness bo required to read it off aloud to the oourt before giving his evidence? That is the natural, and, therefore, the easy thing to do, and I see no objection to it. But if it be thought by I the authorities that that method is not I sufficiently impressive, why should not tho Clerk of tho Court put tho formula to the witness in tho shape of a question, the latter responding at the ond in I the affirmative? Thus: — Clerk: "Do you sincerely deolare and affirm that in 'the matter before the court' you will speak th 6 truth, the wholo truth, and nothing but the truth?" Witness: "I do." This | brings the 'ceremony into line with the I imposition of the oath, and certainly ' seoms altogether unobjectionable. But the present ceremony of iudicial swearing will certainly never be a'bolishcd as long as tho present mode of making affirmation obtains; It is very desirable, theiefore, that somo member of tho Legislature interested in tho administration of justice, should introduce a- short amending Bill into Parliament for the purpose of effecting tho desired change. j I may porhaps be allowed to add that it appears from a very interesting article by Judge Parry on Judicial Swearing, in the latest number (April) of the Con- I temporary Review, that the practice of kissing the book on taking the oath is just the remains of the ancient custom of kissing the bones or other relies of the .^saints, so prevalent in Europe in the Dark Ages. Certainly, when one sees a witness in court to-day going through tho I I usual osoulatory process, one realises that I in spite of telephones and wireless tere- ! graphy, we are not very far removecT ( from tho Dark Ages, even now. I—l1 — I am, etc.. JOHN GAMMELL. I 16th June.