Misplaced Pages

#118881

54-425: Brighton Rock may refer to: Brighton Rock (novel) , a 1938 novel by Graham Greene Brighton Rock (play) , a 1943 stage adaptation by Frank Harvey Brighton Rock (1948 film) , a 1948 film based on the novel, directed by John Boulting Brighton Rock (musical) , a 2004 musical by John Barry and Don Black, based on the novel Brighton Rock (2010 film) ,

108-520: A film adaptation which was released in 2010 , starring Sam Riley as Pinkie, Andrea Riseborough as Rose and Helen Mirren as Ida Arnold. In a chronological departure from Greene's 1930s novel, the film is set in the Mods and Rockers subculture of a divided Brighton in the 1960s. There have also been two radio adaptations. Evelyn Russell's 90-minute dramatisation for the BBC Home Service

162-430: A suicide pact to Rose, on the pretence that Ida is close to having him arrested by the police. His plan is to get her to shoot herself at the developing resort of Peacehaven but not to fulfil his part of the pact. Ida meanwhile has tailed them, sensing that Rose may be in danger, and has brought a policeman along with her. Pinkie's attempt to throw vitriol at his attackers misfires and, blinded by it himself, he runs over

216-567: A 1984 rock concert staged in New Brighton, Merseyside, UK Topics referred to by the same term [REDACTED] This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Brighton Rock . If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brighton_Rock&oldid=1013980829 " Category : Disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description

270-415: A 2010 film also based on the novel Brighton Rock (band) , a Canadian glam metal band Brighton Rock (EP) , a 1985 EP by Brighton Rock "Brighton Rock" (song) , a 1974 song by Queen on the album Sheer Heart Attack Rock (confectionery) , a candy often referred to by its place of origin, for instance "Blackpool rock" or "Brighton rock" See also [ edit ] New Brighton Rock ,

324-401: A cliff to his death. Rose later goes to confession and explains to the priest that she had wanted to accompany Pinkie even into damnation. She is told that since Pinkie had loved her, then there was good in him and she might become the means for his ultimate salvation. She leaves, looking forward to playing a recording he made on the day of their marriage, not realising that it really contains

378-408: A confidential marital communication. In these five situations, a court will not allow either spouse to assert the privilege to block the testimony. The privilege may not be invoked if the statements were not intended to be confidential. Statements are not confidential if they were made in front of a third party or with the expectation that they would be shared with others. However, the presence of

432-551: A crime, depending on the law of the jurisdiction. In all federal and state courts, a spousal communications privilege applies in both civil and criminal cases. It is far less controversial than the testimonial privilege as it does not originate from the legal fiction that a husband and wife were one person . Instead, it is rooted in the idea that those who are married should feel safe openly communicating with each other without fear of future litigation or criminal proceedings. In most jurisdictions including in federal courts, both

486-744: A hundred performances at the Garrick Theatre in the West End , starring Richard Attenborough and Dulcie Gray . In 2004, composer John Barry and lyricist Don Black wrote a musical version based on the novel. The show opened in London's Almeida Theatre on 20 September and ran until 13 October. However, owing to poor reviews, it failed to get a West End transfer. A more successful adaptation followed in 2018, when Bryony Lavery 's play opened at York Theatre Royal in February before touring

540-639: A lucky bet at long odds. Her enquiries soon establish the broad outlines of the story, even though Rose consistently refuses to co-operate and warns Pinkie of Ida's investigation. Pinkie is summoned to an interview with Colleoni, a leading mobster whose aim is to take over all the illegal operations in Brighton. At the time Pinkie is too cocksure to take up Colleoni's invitation to join his operation. Afterwards he pretends to have reconsidered in order to get Colleoni to murder Spicer, whom Pinkie suspects of being close to turning informer. In fact both men are set up for

594-521: A razor attack at the horse races but escape separately. Discovering that Spicer is still alive, Pinkie throws him to his death from an unstable staircase in their lodgings and implicates their terrified solicitor Prewitt into helping him cover up the murder. Prewitt has also helped Pinkie and Rose avoid the legal obstacles to their marriage and Pinkie now discovers that Rose has known of his criminality all along but not minded. Feeling trapped, and with what remains of his gang disintegrating, Pinkie proposes

SECTION 10

#1732797788119

648-557: A report by Charles "Fred" Hale in the Daily Messenger about his slot machine racket. Now Hale has been sent to Brighton to distribute cards anonymously for a newspaper competition and realises that he is being hunted by Pinkie's mob. Hale meets middle-aged Ida Arnold by chance in a pub and then on the Palace Pier as the mob is closing in, but he is snatched away without her realising what has happened to him. To confuse

702-462: A wide range of scenarios. This absolute immunity lasted only until the entry into force of section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 , which restored in limited cases the ability of the prosecution to compel the testimony of the spouse of the accused (later amended to include civil partners), namely where the defendant has been charged with "assault on, or injury or a threat of injury to"

756-438: A young child does not negate the confidentiality of the communication. The opposing party must rebut the presumption that confidentiality was intended. Under U.S. federal common law , the spousal testimonial privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and therefore does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so. The rationale of this rule is that if a witness-spouse desires to testify against

810-402: Is a form of privileged communication that protects the contents of confidential communications between spouses during their marriage from testimonial disclosure, while spousal testimonial privilege (also called spousal incompetency and spousal immunity) protects the individual holding the privilege from being called to testify in proceedings relating to their spouse. However, in some countries,

864-408: Is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages Brighton Rock (novel) Brighton Rock is a novel by Graham Greene , published in 1938 and later adapted for film and theatre. The novel is a murder thriller set in 1930s Brighton . The first of Greene's works to explore Catholic themes and moral issues, its treatment of class privilege and

918-498: Is no privilege." Both rules may be suspended depending on the jurisdiction in the case of divorce proceedings or child custody disputes, but are suspended in cases where one spouse is accused of a crime against the other spouse or the spouse's child. Courts generally do not permit an adverse spouse to invoke either privilege during a trial initiated by the other spouse, or in the case of domestic abuse . The privileges may also be suspended where both spouses are joint participants in

972-594: Is the paradox of the Catholic novel". A number of dramatic adaptations continue to be made from the novel. The first of those designed for the stage was written by Walter Kerr and Leo Brady for the Catholic University of America Theatre in Washington, D.C. The show starred Eric Linden as Pinkie and ran from 4 – 10 February in 1942. In Britain the following year, Frank Harvey 's play ran for

1026-677: The House of Lords ruled otherwise in Leach v R (1912). Distinguishing Leach , the Court of Criminal Appeal held in R v Lapworth (1930) that a wife was nevertheless a compellable witness for the prosecution in cases of personal violence against her, on the basis that the common law position prior to the 1898 Act had not been affected by the Act. However, in Hoskyn v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1978)

1080-547: The " reception " of English law. On 30 November 2011, the High Court of Australia decided that neither privilege existed in common law – seemingly influenced (in regard to marital communications) by the English decision to that effect in 1939 in the case of Shenton v Tyler , and (in regard to privilege against testimony) the fact that by 1898 the old common law rule had been abolished in English law (i.e. whilst Australia

1134-585: The 1853 Act was limited – it did not extend to third-party disclosure, nor prevent voluntary disclosure – and was asymmetric, as it did not prevent the utterer from being compelled to disclose communications, only the listener (i.e. it acted only as a modified form of the rule against hearsay). As a result, in the Report on Privilege in Civil Proceedings published in December 1967 (partly influenced by

SECTION 20

#1732797788119

1188-424: The Catholic doctrine of divine judgment and "who decided that if any soul was going to be damned, he would be damned too." This was, in fact, the case of the writer Charles Péguy . Another aspect of the problem's difficulty is the impossibility of changing an environmentally conditioned character, as suggested in the title of the novel. Primarily, rock is a hard type of confectionery sold at seaside resorts, with

1242-623: The Court of Appeal in Shenton v Tyler that having researched the subject he found no evidence to support this view and that, rather, any such privilege was solely the result of statute. In particular Sir Wilfred cited, as the sole origin of the privilege, section 3 of the Evidence Amendment Act 1853 which provided that, in civil cases, "no husband shall be compellable to disclose any communication made to him by his wife during

1296-465: The House of Lords overruled Lapworth , ending the personal violence exception, ruling that spouses are competent but not compellable witnesses for the prosecution in all cases, thus restoring the 1912 decision in Leach . In reaching this view, judges were swayed by the special status of marriage, and the "natural repugnance" that the public would feel at seeing a wife give evidence against her husband in

1350-525: The UK. Terence Rattigan and Greene himself wrote the screenplay for a 1948 film , produced and directed by John and Roy Boulting . It again starred Richard Attenborough as Pinkie, with Carol Marsh as Rose. In the United States, the film was released under the title Young Scarface . The climax differs from the novel in taking place at the Palace Pier . In the new century, Rowan Joffé directed

1404-422: The color of the clothing the party-spouse was wearing on a certain day, as well as communications, such as the content of a telephone conversation with the party-spouse. The holder of the privilege may invoke it regarding events which occurred (1) during the marriage, if the spouses are still married; and (2) prior to the marriage if they are married to their spouse in court proceedings at the time of trial. If, by

1458-401: The communications privilege survives the end of a marriage, and may be asserted by a spouse to protect confidential communications that were made during the marriage—even after divorce or death. The spousal communications privilege may not be invoked if the spouses are suing each other or each other's estates in a civil case; nor if one of the spouses has initiated a criminal proceeding against

1512-477: The credibility of her evidence. This form of privilege, restricting the admissibility into evidence of communications between spouses during a marriage, existed in English law from 1853 until it was abolished in 1968 (for civil cases) and in 1984 (for criminal cases). The existence of a communications privilege in the common law (i.e. in case law) is disputed. Its existence was assumed by late nineteenth century writers, but in 1939 Sir Wilfred Greene, MR , noted in

1566-412: The declaration of his hatred. Although ostensibly an underworld thriller, the book is also noted as the first of Greene's series of religious novels and deals with Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the nature of sin and the basis of morality . Pinkie and Rose are Catholics (as was Greene), and their beliefs are contrasted with Ida's sentimental sense of right and wrong. Greene is also initiating here

1620-525: The defence (and cannot be compelled to do so by either side), part of her own right to the privilege against self-incrimination. No privilege extends to couples who are co-habiting but are neither married nor in a civil partnership, a source of major criticism. The 1984 Act also repealed section 43(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 , in a further extension of the wife's protection from violence directed against her (which had protected

1674-464: The difference between Right and Wrong. They didn't teach you that at school," Rose didn't answer; the woman was quite right: the two words meant nothing to her. Their taste was extinguished by stronger foods - Good and Evil. This leads to a further paradox on which the novel dwells more than once: that, their common origin apart, Pinkie and Rose are so much opposites that they make a whole. As another interpreter has commented, "Their only possible relation

Brighton Rock - Misplaced Pages Continue

1728-534: The down-and-out beachcomber, the old woman crouching to say her rosary in an alley, and characters like Pinkie and Rose struggling to escape the slums that bred them. Then there is the irreconcilable difference between the Catholic ideological interpretations of good and evil and Ida's humanistic moral intuition, which goes far beyond a simple contrast of alternatives. The two are mutually exclusive. So, when Ida declares in her argument with Rose in Chapter 7: "I know

1782-502: The husband from the wife giving evidence on a charge of marital rape). It may be prudent to be cautious about seeking to compel a spouse to give evidence against her will, as it may tend to bring the law into disrepute. According to the Crown Prosecution Service, it is questionable whether she will tell the truth under those circumstances, and she may become a hostile witness, circumstances which must tend to reduce

1836-623: The marriage, and no wife shall be compellable to disclose any communication made to her by her husband during the marriage". This provision was based on the Second Report of the Commissioners on Common Law Procedure , who referenced the "inviolability of domestic confidence". It was repeated in section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 , which extended its applicability to the criminal law. The provision made in

1890-567: The other party, not being the other spouse). This was extended by the Evidence Further Amendment Act 1869 to proceedings actually brought by the other spouse, in consequence of adultery (i.e. relating to the marriage), the position on compulsion being clarified in Tilley v Tilley (1949). In criminal cases, however, the common law long held that wives were not competent to give evidence against their husband (i.e. for

1944-435: The other; nor in a competency proceeding regarding one of the spouses. These three scenarios are identical to the limitations which also apply to limit the spousal testimonial privilege. Two further scenarios defeat the spousal communications privilege: if the confidential communication was made in order to plan or commit a crime or fraud, or if a defendant-spouse wishes, in a criminal trial, to testify in their own defense, about

1998-426: The party-spouse, there is no marital harmony left to protect through the obstruction of such testimony. This common law principle is the view in a minority of U.S. states. A majority of U.S. jurisdictions, however, do not follow U.S. federal common law; in most states, the party-spouse, and not the witness-spouse, is the holder of spousal testimonial privilege. Spousal testimonial privilege covers observations, such as

2052-536: The police investigation, Pinkie has gang member Spicer distribute Hale's cards about the town and then tries to retrieve one card from the café in which sixteen-year-old Rose is working as a waitress. Since Rose had spotted Spicer leaving the card, Pinkie realises that she can now disprove his trail of deception and must take measures to prevent this. He therefore courts Rose until she falls in love with him, his aim being to marry her so that she cannot testify against him . In reality he looks down on her, since she comes from

2106-502: The privilege not to be called as a witness by the party adverse to the interests of the spouse in the trial. This privilege is one aspect of a long-established rule of evidence, in its origin a common law rule, that a party to legal proceedings shall not be required to testify against himself. Deriving from the legal fiction that a husband and wife are one person, it extends the defendant's protection against self-incrimination to his wife also. At common law, accordingly, prior to 1853

2160-400: The problem of evil is paradoxical and ambivalent. There is an incidental link between this novel and Greene's earlier A Gun for Sale (1936), in that the murder of the gang boss Kite, mentioned in A Gun For Sale , allows the seventeen-year-old sociopath Pinkie to take over his gang and thus sets the events of Brighton Rock in motion. The murder of Kite had been brought about because of

2214-439: The prosecution), subject to the one exception that a wife could give such evidence where her husband was accused of personal violence against her. Section 4(1) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 made spouses competent to give evidence against one another in many more circumstances, including giving evidence for the defence. It was initially assumed that the Act also meant spouses could be compelled to give such evidence, but

Brighton Rock - Misplaced Pages Continue

2268-521: The protection to not testify against one's spouse extends only to married couples and not civil partnerships or other forms of relationships. As of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 spouses and civil partners are compellable witnesses. In Australian law , both the common law privilege of confidentiality between married people and the privilege of spouses not to testify against each other were assumed to have continued with

2322-715: The reasoning in Shenton v Tyler , where the Court of Appeal had refused to apply it) the English Law Reform Committee recommended its abolition in civil cases, which was done in the Civil Evidence Act 1968 , and in criminal cases, which was eventually done in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 . Generally, spouses cannot be compelled to give evidence against their partners as it forces them to choose between giving truthful evidence - thereby jeopardising their relationship - and giving unreliable evidence. A 2019 Court of Appeal ruling found

2376-439: The same socially deprived neighbourhood as himself, and is even repelled by her physically. Back in London, Ida reads about the inquest on Hale's death, which had found that he died of heart failure. Remembering the state of terror that Hale was in when she last saw him, she decides to go down to Brighton and discover the full story. While there she recruits the help of one of her old bed-fellows and manages to finance her trip with

2430-465: The series of moral problems with which his later novels wrestle. In this case he is asking what place has a creature as heartless as Pinkie within God's infinite mercy. Rose had wanted to share in the damnation that Pinkie had earned, but the solution to her dilemma only arises indirectly in her interview in the confessional. There the priest refers her to the example of an unnamed Frenchman who rebelled against

2484-503: The spousal privileges have their roots in the legal fiction that a husband and wife were one person . In the United States , federal case law dictates the privileges permissible and prohibited in federal trials, while state case law governs their scope in state courts. A common rule for both the communications privilege and the testimonial privilege is that, "absent a lawful marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership, there

2538-489: The spouse or a child under 16, or a sexual offence toward a child under 16. In addition, under the 1984 Act, the defence can almost always compel the spouse to testify, and as set out in section 53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 a spouse will generally be competent to offer testimony voluntarily. However, a spouse (or civil partner) who is an active co-defendant to the charge can only testify for

2592-400: The spouses. Spousal testimonial privilege, in other words, only lasts as long as the marriage does. A minority of states apply testimonial privilege in both criminal and civil cases. For example, under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §970, California permits the application of testimonial privilege to both civil and criminal cases, and includes both the privilege not to testify as well as

2646-429: The time the trial occurs, the spouses are no longer married, the privilege holder may testify freely about any events which occurred prior to, after, or even during the marriage. Spousal testimonial privilege may not be invoked if the spouses are suing each other or each other's estates in a civil case; if one of the spouses has initiated a criminal proceeding against the other; or in a competency proceeding regarding one of

2700-424: The town's name embedded in the centre and elongated down its length, so that it is revealed wherever the stick is broken. At the most obvious level, it stands for the tawdry 1930s seaside town, from a disadvantaged part of which both Pinkie and Rose have emerged. But in terms of the plot it is also the murder weapon ironically chosen to choke Hale. And beyond that again, it is the symbol of unchangeable human nature for

2754-402: The trite and morally neutral Ida. It was against just such seeming inflexibility that Péguy reacted. The way opposites are handled in the novel adds this further layer of complexity to its meaning. The tourist aspect of Brighton and the gangsterism that takes advantage of it are at odds but depend on each other. The affluent characters coming and going in its luxury hotels and bars contrast with

SECTION 50

#1732797788119

2808-409: The wife of a party in a case was not competent to give evidence for or against him (so could not do so even voluntarily). In civil cases, the common law rule was abolished by the Evidence Amendment Act 1853 , section 1 of which provided that one spouse was generally competent to give evidence against the other (i.e. in a civil suit could do so voluntarily) and could be compelled to do so (i.e. by

2862-480: The witness-spouse and the accused-spouse have the spousal communications privilege, so either may invoke it to prevent the witness-spouse from testifying about a confidential communication made during the marriage even if neither spouse is a party in the trial. It covers all communications made during marriage, and cannot be invoked to protect confidential communications between currently married spouses which occurred prior to their marriage. Unlike testimonial privilege,

2916-457: Was aired in 1953 with Jimmy Thompson as Pinkie. In 1994, Ken Whitmore adapted the story for a five-episode BBC Radio dramatisation, directed by John Yorke and starring Steven Mackintosh as Pinkie. Spousal privilege Both types of privilege are based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony and preventing spouses from condemning, or being condemned by, their spouses: the spousal communications privilege or confidences privilege

#118881