paper discusses the meaning of “burden of proof” and “standard of proof” and will also explain the direction of the Judge given to the jurors in the given set of facts. 1. BURDEN OF PROOF It is derived from the Latin expression onus probandi. The burden of proof or onus of proof refers to the obligation on a party to satisfy the court to a specified standard of proof that certain facts are true. The facts for this particular purpose are facts in issue.1 Burden of proof is closely associated with the
Premium Criminal law Legal burden of proof
Historical background & Development of the law of Criminal Evidence In criminal proceedings‚ the legal burden of proving any fact which is essential to the prosecution’s case rests upon and remains with the prosecution for the duration of the trial. Generally‚ the defendant in the proceedings will bear no legal burden at all in relation to the essential ingredients of the offence. The reasoning behind this is that all persons are entitled to a fair trial where the presumption of innocence is
Premium Criminal law Legal burden of proof Law
Imposing a legal burden upon a defendant will negate the principle of presumption of innocence. If a defendant has to prove their innocence than it would automatically and unconsciously bring up the issue that they were never considered innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence was first articulated in the case of Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462‚ 461 where Viscount Sankey LC stated that: ‘Throughout the web of English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen‚ that it
Premium Law Human rights European Convention on Human Rights
Pre- Independence Law Commissions The First Law Commission was established in 1834 by the British Government under the Chairmanship of Lord Macaulay. It suggested various enactments to the British Government‚ most of which were passed and enacted and are still in force in India. Few of the most importance recommendations made by this First Law Commission were those on‚ Indian Penal Code (first submitted in 1837 but enacted in 1860 and still in force)‚Criminal Procedure Code (enacted in 1898
Premium Law Common law Legal burden of proof
2 Burden and standard of proof; presumptions Introduction The allocation of the burden of proof in both civil and criminal trials turns on the decision as to who should bear the risk of losing the case. That allocation is decided by common law and by statute. In criminal trials the ‘presumption of innocence’ means that the burden of proof will be on the prosecution‚ unless this is reversed by some express or implied statutory provision. Here the law of evidence safeguards what in some other
Free Criminal law Law
Starting off with a paragraph taken from an article written by John H. Langbein: “…the main work of a legal system is deciding matters of past fact. Blackstone remarked that “experience will abundantly show that above a hundred of our lawsuits arise from disputed facts‚ for one where the law is doubted of.” Was the traffic light red or green? Was it O.J. Simpson or somebody else who wielded the dagger? Find the facts and the law is usually easy…”1 Adrian Keane and Paul McKeown have noted down that
Premium Law Legal burden of proof Criminal law
History The sixth century Digest of Justinian (22.3.2) provides‚ as a general rule of evidence: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit‚ non qui negat - Proof lies on him who asserts‚ not on him who denies”. It is there attributed to the second and third century jurist Paul. Similar to its Romanic predecessor‚ Islamic law also holds the principle that the onus of proof is on the claimant‚ based on a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi. The collapse of Western Modern Empire gave way to the rise of feudalistic
Premium Legal burden of proof Criminal law Presumption of innocence
This is the basic common law rule in cases of bailment for reward‚ of which this contract is an instance. It could be argued that any ambiguity as to the burden of proof should be resolved in Annie’s favour because this basic principle has not been clearly excluded‚ and its rationale is clearly present here: after the goods were consigned to the defendants‚ they‚ and not Annie‚ were in a better position to explain
Premium Pleading Pleading Evidence
Burden of Proof 4 1. Legal/Persuasive Burden of Proof 4 2. Evidential Burden 4 3. Section 11(d) violation 4 4. Section 1 5 Actus Reus 5 A. Act or Omission 6 R. v. Instan 6 People v. Beardsley 6 R. v. Thornton 7 R. v. Urbanovich 7 R. v. Ssenyonga 7 B. Voluntariness 8 C. Causation 8 R. v. Smithers 8 R. v. Duncan 9 R. v. Johnston 9 R. v. Nette 9 R. v. Blaue 9 R. v. Cribbin 9 R. v. Harbottle 10 Mens Rea
Premium Jury Law Appeal
As stated by Lord Chancellor Viscount Samkey[1]‚ it is essential that the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant in criminal cases. Hence‚ the burden of prove solely lies in the hands of the prosecution. The obvious reason to this is because everyone is entitled to a fair trial with a general presumption of innocence until proven against. The case of Woolmington v DPP clarified several uncertainties in regards to this area of the law. Here‚ Reginald Woolmington’s wife left him to
Premium Law Crime Jury