Sedition Act 1661 - Two Witnesses Rule

Two Witnesses Rule

The most important feature of the Act was that it reintroduced a significant new rule of evidence in high treason trials, namely that nobody could be convicted of treason except by the evidence of "two lawful and credible witnesses upon oath... brought in person before him or them face to face," or if he confessed "willingly without violence." (This rule had previously been enacted in section 22 of the Treason Act 1547, and again in section XI of the Treason Act 1554, which however differed from the other versions by only requiring the witnesses "if living and within the realm".) This clause of the 1661 Act, section 5, was replaced by the Treason Act 1695, which added that the two witnesses had to have witnessed the same offence (although not necessarily the same "overt act" of the offence). The rule was inherited by the United States and was incorporated into the US Constitution in 1787, which added that both witnesses had to have witnessed the same overt act. Section 5 of the 1661 Act was cited by US Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia in his judgement in Crawford v. Washington, a case about the "Confrontation Clause" of the Sixth Amendment.

The 1661 version of this rule only applied to the new forms of treason (and other offences) which were created by the 1661 Act (see the New offences section below). The 1695 Act applied to all forms of high treason, except counterfeiting coins.

The rule was abolished in the United Kingdom by the Treason Act 1945, which made the rules of evidence and procedure in treason cases the same as in a murder trial. During the passage of the Treason Bill through Parliament the Home Secretary, Sir Donald Somervell, said: