The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved.
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.
If, at the end of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the defence... the prosecution has not made out the case and the accused is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge is , the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained .#
The rules main goal is to prohibit evidence obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights from being admissible in court (Siegel 2010). The exclusionary rule may prevent evidence seized in violation of a person's constitutional rights from being admitted into court, an officer who has violated someone's rights could also be sued along with their agency. According to Section 1983 of the U.S. Code an officer could be prosecuted criminally under some circumstances as well (Forsythe n.d.). The case United States v. Leon is notable because due to this case the good faith exception was added to the exclusionary rule. The exemption allows evidence collected in violation of privacy rights as interpreted from the Fourth Amendment to be admitted at trial if police officers acting in good faith relied upon a defective search warrant (Siegel 2010).
In conclusion the paramount issue regarding secret trust is adressed in a positive manner. The fact that there are a lot of cases and reasons for the scepticism behind this doctrine does bring with it a lot of equitable aspects. In analysing the case law as well as the legality of if the papper concludes that the conundrum of secret trust has justification as well a equitable basis to it. The legal element is not there in statute but as shown through sufficient case law; it is a a justifiable doctrine when theories are composed together regarding different aspects of the doctrine.
But the consideration changes if there is mixed question of law and facts. When there is a mixed question of law and facts, the inference drawn from the facts would be considered to be a question of law. This will not be the case when the issue concerned contains pure question of fact. Consequently, it becomes imperative to examine the understanding of substantial question of law as is used in this section. There is no strict test which is uniformly applicable in all the cases to determine whether substantial question of law is involved or not.
INTRODUCTION The statement, which is a quote from McPhail v Doulton , is stating that for a trust to be valid the beneficiaries must be able to be identifiable, meaning there are persons with a beneficial interest in the trust. From the case of Re Endacott we know that beneficiaries must be certain or capable to be certain; with out this, the trust will fail. It is so crucial to identify the beneficiaries because the trustees must know to whom they owe an obligation, and so the courts can enforce the trust. Certainty has been said to be the “greatest problems of principle to chancery lawyers” The case of Knight v Knight is one of the most important cases in the area of trust law. It provided the three certainties; a checklist to see if
CHAPTER VII IMPLICATIONS OF HAVING A CLEAR DEFINITION WITH ITS CORRESPONDING ELEMENTS FOR THE CRIME OF UNJUST VEXATION Substantially, defining the crime of unjust Vexation with corresponding elements would bar any challenges against its constitutionality based on the grounds mentioned in Chapter V of this paper. Procedurally, defining the crime of Unjust Vexation with corresponding elements will also help both the prosecution and the accused avail of several procedures recognized under our criminal procedure, such as: Plea Bargaining The rule on the provisions on Pre –Trial indicates that plea bargaining is one of the matters to be considered during the pre-trial stage, a proceeding conducted before the trial. “Rule 116, Sec. 2: Plea of
The PC is however, reluctant to disturb its previous decision unless a new point of law is raised or if reasoning has been reviewed. Next in the hierarchy of courts is the Court of Appeal, Supreme Courts followed by family courts and magistrates courts. The least authoritative in the hierarchical structure are Juvenile Courts. Obligations to such binding precedents and the hierarchy of the courts were declared in London Tramcars Co Ltd v London County
This is so to ensure the protection of the rights of a particular individual on trial. In addition, the above constitutional provision, as a presumption, was well explained in the case of Woolmington v The Director of Public Prosecutions . In this case Viscount Sankey L.C. stated thus: “Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception …” The above excerpt shows that the presumption of innocence places the burden of proof in criminal cases on the prosecution, who are to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In fact, Viscount Sankey L.C.