Trial by Combat

Ashford v Thornton (1818) 106 ER 149 is an English criminal case in the Court of King's Bench which upheld the right of the defendant to trial by battle on a private appeal from an acquittal for murder.. In 1817, Abraham Thornton was charged with the murder of Mary Ashford. Thornton had met Ashford at a dance and had walked with her from the event. Next morning, she was found drowned in a local pit, although there was little evidence of her having died a violent death. Charged with rape and murder, public opinion would have condemned Thornton, but the jury could not see any evidence to convict him and he was acquitted.

But that was not the end of the story, for William Ashford, Mary's brother, launched an appeal and when Thornton was rearrested, he claimed the right to trial by battle or combat. This medieval solution was still on the stature books and therefore quite legal. Back to court they went, with Ashford claiming the evidence against Thornton was overwhelming. The court disagreed and trial by battle was Ashford's sole remaining option. Ashford did not take up the option and Thornton was released. In 1819 appeals of this nature were abolished by the state, but too late for Thornton's reputation and he had already departed for a new life in the United States of America.

The last recorded trial by battle to come to a conclusion dates from 1597. In Scotland Adam Butterfield accused James Carmichael of murder and exacted revenge by killing the latter. Other cases in 1631 and 1638 were stopped by the king's intervention.

Attempts to abolish the law came in the 17th century and twice in the 18th century, all proving unsuccessful. Of course, in 1819 it did disappear from the statute books, but that did not prevent the law being cited in 2002. Unemployed 60-year-old mechanic Leon Humphreys appeared in Ipswich court, charged with failing to tell the DVLA his motorcycle was off road and thus liable to pay the Road Fund Licence. The DVLA were attempting to fine him £25. But the man from Bury St Edmunds did not agree. Indeed, he told the court he would not enter a plea but demanded the DVLA nominate a champion whom he would fight to the death to prove his innocence. He also claimed the new Human Rights laws meant ordinary folk like him could use the law for their own purposes. Traditionally these battles were fought with swords, lances, shields, staves, and the like - but Mr Humphreys was happy to wield Japanese samurai swords, Ghurka knives, or even a blacksmith's hammer.

Mr Humphreys was forced to pay the fine.