Open Access Repository
Obligations under oath-- absolute or ambulatory
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
|
PDF
(Whole thesis)
whole_BennettKi...pdf | Download (3MB) Available under University of Tasmania Standard License. | Preview |
Abstract
Oath-taking is an integral part of my professional life; oaths are used almost as a tool
of trade, and are accepted as guarantees of truth. Whilst there is now a statutory right
to affirm, instead of to swear, an affirmation itself constitutes a formula, an
asseveration to tell the truth. Zeeman J, in the case of R v Mansell decided in 1993,
declined to accept evidence on oath from a child aged twelve years because he held
inter alia that the child "[had] no notion of the nature or obligation of an oath in the
sense that he [had] no understanding of what it is to swear to tell the truth or
promising God to tell the truth and has no expectation that God will reward or punish
in this world or the next".(1) Whilst His Honour's decision was overturned on appeal,
the case demonstrates that oath-taking is fundamental to our legal system and its
function in society. It is not only oaths in court proceedings though which are still the
subject of debate; oaths of allegiance are also under scrutiny in the context of the so-called
Republican debate in this country.
Item Type: | Thesis - Coursework Master |
---|---|
Authors/Creators: | Bennett, Kim L |
Keywords: | Oaths, Loyalty oaths |
Copyright Holders: | The Author |
Copyright Information: | Copyright 1994 the Author - The University is continuing to endeavour to trace the copyright |
Additional Information: | Thesis (M.Hum.)--University of Tasmania, 1995. Includes bibliographical references |
Item Statistics: | View statistics for this item |
Actions (login required)
![]() |
Item Control Page |