## Facts

- The Attorney General, ex officio, exhibited a criminal information against Dr. Purnell, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford and a justice of the peace.
- The information charged neglect of duty, including failure to take a witness deposition (Blacow) and failure, as vice-chancellor and magistrate, to punish Whitmore and Dawes for allegedly speaking treasonable words in the streets of Oxford.
- A first information was filed and answered, but a *noli prosequi* was entered; the Crown then filed a second information, to which Dr. Purnell appeared and pleaded.
- A trial at bar was first appointed for November 21, then countermanded, and later reset for February 6.
- On the last day of term, the Attorney General—without any supporting affidavit—moved for a rule directed to the proper officers of the university to permit inspection of the university’s “books, records and archives,” expressly “in order to furnish evidence against the vice chancellor.”
- The Crown framed the application as a motion of course for a peremptory rule, asserting that the King, as visitor of the university, had a right to inspect its books whenever he thought proper.
- Notice of the motion was given late the night before, and counsel for the university opposed, arguing (among other points) that the request was overly general and that compelling access for the purpose stated would, in effect, force the defendant to provide evidence against himself.
- The court initially granted only a rule to show cause; after argument, it determined whether inspection would be compelled in aid of the prosecution.

## Issues

1. Whether, on a criminal information for misdemeanor against a corporate magistrate, the Court of King’s Bench should order inspection of the corporation’s books, records, and archives when the stated purpose is to supply evidence for the Crown.
2. Whether the King’s asserted visitorial relationship to the university justifies a peremptory judicial rule compelling inspection in a pending criminal prosecution.

## Decision

- The Court of King’s Bench refused to make the inspection rule absolute and discharged the rule to show cause.
- The court held that, on an information against a magistrate of a corporation for a misdemeanor, it would not grant a rule to inspect the corporation’s books for the purpose of furnishing evidence against him.

## Legal Principles

- In a criminal information against a corporate magistrate for misdemeanor, the court will not compel inspection of corporate books where the object is to provide the prosecution with evidence against the defendant.
- The principle expressed by *nemo tenetur seipsum accusare* supports withholding coercive court process that would operate, in substance, as forcing the accused to assist in proving the charge.
- The court distinguished civil or quasi-civil matters (such as franchise contests) where corporate books may function as public evidences held in a trustee-like capacity and where inspection may be necessary to resolve rights, from criminal prosecutions where inspection would be used to build the Crown’s case.
- A broadly framed request to inspect “books, records and archives,” without particularization and without evidentiary support by affidavit, is especially unsuitable as a pretrial tool to obtain proof in a criminal proceeding.
- The Crown’s claim of a general visitorial right did not convert into an automatic judicial entitlement to a peremptory inspection order in aid of a criminal prosecution.

## Conclusion

King’s Bench declined to use an interlocutory rule to compel Oxford’s officers to open the university’s books, records, and archives to the Crown for the admitted purpose of supplying evidence against Dr. Purnell, holding that such inspection would not be ordered on a criminal information against a corporate magistrate and that the asserted visitorial status did not justify a peremptory evidentiary inspection order.


Rex v. Purnell, (1748) 2 Wils. K.B. 20, 96 Eng. Rep. 20 (K.B.)