Abstract

This paper provides a re-assessment of the significance of turning king's evidence in late medieval England through a re-examination of the use of approvers' appeals as a method of prosecution. It puts forward the hypothesis that the process was not only popular with felons, but also actively encouraged by the Crown. Exploring attitudes towards confessions and their admissibility, it compares and contrasts contemporary Continental prosecution practices and considers the extent to which the English legal system was developing a form of public prosecution through the encouragement of approvers, mainly at times of political stress or during law enforcement drives. Analysis of the verdicts returned by juries on persons arrested and tried on the basis of approvers' confessions indicates a high incidence of acquittal. This apparent failure in the system is explained in terms of the prejudices and practices of the juries, judicial scrutiny of the appeals, and putative government policy