The burden of proof is an obligation on one party to persuade the jury or a judge of an alleged claim. The defendant need not prove his own innocence; it is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty and the standard of proof here is beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to discharge such legal burden would result in the defendant being acquitted. This principle is especially important in criminal cases because a person’s liberty is at stake. In doing so, it will help to promote fair trial and somewhat uphold human rights.
TOPIC 7 THE DEFENCE OF NECESSITY OR COMPLUSION 1 Introduction South African “criminal law is a branch of national law that defines certain forms of human conduct as crimes”. The criminal law defence of necessity or compulsion is available and arises when a person is confronted with a situation where they choose a course of action that breaks the law in order to avoid “suffering some evil”. Regardless of whether it is “brought about by the force of surrounding circumstances” or if the person was acting out of their human independent free will. “The Law is the same in both instances”. The defence is considered as a general defence to all crimes, where it be a common-law crime or a contradiction with a statutory provision.
Introduction This question requires for an understanding on the rules and principles relating to criminal liability for an omission. As well as whether the rules and principles are too restrictive on individual freedom. In order to have an understanding of the rules and principles of omissions, one first must understand how criminal liability is imposed. For a person to be found guilty of a crime they must have both the mens rea and actus reus of the committed crime. Actus reus is the guilty deed or act and mens rea is the guilty state of mind.
Lack of better evidence than acts and statements including that of co-conspirators in pursuance of the conspiracy requires appreciation of circumstantial evidence following the well established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence can be reasonably made the basis of an accused person's conviction if it is of such a character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt...But in applying this principle, it is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other...When it is held that a certain fact is proved, the question arises whether that fact leads to the inference of guilt of the accused person or not, and in dealing with this aspect of the problem the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his
Nominal damages, given although there is no harm at all, or merely a slight one, may also be awarded in an assault and battery action. Punitive Damages are often given when the offense was committed maliciously to punish the defendant for the wrongful act and to deter others from engaging in similar acts in the future. If a defendant is found criminally liable, the punishment is imprisonment, a fine, or both. CRITISISM In assault intention is necessary so even if the defendant commits a crime and does not have an intent to harm the victim, the individual cannot be guilty of the offense. SUGGESTIONS The law must then balance the degree of the risk and the likelihood of injury occurring, against the expense and difficulty of taking precautions both in assault and battery more precautiously.
We have witnessed in this century, the growth of sophisticated crime. Here, question is, whether existing periphery of extradition norms are competent enough to combat such a kind of sophistication? As mentioned earlier, extradition should be seen with a diverse view. Not all demands of extradition can be genuine, but also we have to kept in mind that most of them are genuine demand so in fist instance the question of human right arises and in the latter, the issue of state sovereignty stands. If we examine closer, the purpose of extradition we are left that, is to prevent criminals who flee from a jurisdiction to escape from punishment for criminal offence they have been accused or convicted of.
Understanding the nature of the dispute, the stress involve in resolving dispute, the cost of involve, and the impact certainly act as a leeway when choosing a method to resolve a dispute. Crimes can be classified as civil or criminal, and both can be resolved following either alternative dispute resolution (ADR), litigation, or criminal prosecution. Although all three methods cannot go with every kind of crime, the nature and magnitude of the crime will easily determine which method to use. The three scenarios have been carefully studied and an appropriate method of dispute resolution had been allocated to each situation. The first situation involved workplace ethic and fraud, therefore criminal prosecution is best suited to handle the case.
Premier Barry O 'Farrell stated that "This is about ensuring that there 's the strongest possible message". Although this is arguably a little extreme, the case about making a point stands. Through this message, society now has the potential to grasp how certain matters are treated by the law. One of the issues with mandatory sentencing is that there is no flexibility for any future cases. Mr Cowdery, a retired DPP officer said, "judges needed discretion in sentencing to ensure the punishment fitted with the circumstances of the crime and the criminal themselves".
The presumption of innocence is an important component of the criminal law system. When a person is charged with a criminal offence the law regards the alleged offender as innocent until proved guilty. In other words, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is indeed guilty of the crime alleged. This position however, is somewhat different when persons are suspected of money laundering and terrorist financing offences. To say then, that the cardinal freedom of an individual (in this case the customer of a bank) to be presumed innocent until proved guilty is blown away by the enforcement of anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing legislations in the Commonwealth Caribbean is true to a great extent.
This paper focuses on the principle of mens rea together with actus reus and their effects with regard to determination of criminal cases. There are two main elements that constitute a crime and these include mens rea and actus Reus. Mens rea Mens rea is a term that is used to describe the mental intention or the defendant’s mental state in the course of committing the offense and is also referred to as “guilty Mind”. This is a critical element of a crime in the sense that the occurrence of a criminal offense is either voluntary or purposeful. A crime act usually comes from what is popularly referred to as ancient maxim that is the “act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty.” As such, it is required that for on to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused not only