It is essential to state that which shifts is the evidential burden and it has to be proved on a balance of probabilities. The above details can be appreciated in the case of Attorney General v Lyampali and Liso in which the accused persons had to prove on a balance of probabilities that they had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for “possessing offensive weapons in a public place”, elements which had been proved by the prosecution. Having considered the presumption of innocence as guaranteed under the constitution and the extent to which it is afforded protection, it is pertinent to consider the right contained and guaranteed under article 18(7) of the Constitution, which is to be discussed under the heading below. 2. Competence and Compellability of an Accused
The question requires one to discuss as to what extent has the “Presumption of Innocence” as articulated by Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP  , has changed in light of Human Rights Act [HRA] 1998. Woolmington v DPP is a landmark House of Lords [ HOL] case where the Presumption of Innocence was first articulated # . In delivering his judgement for a unanimous Court, Viscount Sankey made his famous "Golden thread’ speech . ‘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... the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt,
The appellants proceed to argue that there was consent among the appellants as a defence against their conviction that they have consented to the bodily harm. 3.1 Legal Reasoning of the Courts The issue arose whether or not consent is a valid defence against the harm that was inflicted between the appellants in private. With this defence of consent, the House of Lord had to consider the following situation where D harms V, does the prosecution have to prove that V has a lack of consent towards the harmful act of D before convicting D of OAPA 1861 under s20 and
This presumption protects the liberty of every individuals including the accused. In civil cases, the burden falls on the claimant to prove on the balance of probabilities whereas in criminal cases, the legal burden falls on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Whereas for defences such as provocation (Mancini v DPP ), self-defence (Rv Lobell ), duress (R v Gill ), non-insane automatism (Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland ) and alibi, the accused has an evidential burden to adduce evidence. Once the defence is valid, the burden is then falls on the prosecution to negative the defence beyond a reasonable
The most essential part of our judicial system is that it is based on the presumption that the accused is innocent unless proven guilty beyond doubt. Also it is better that ten guilty are held free than one innocent being falsely implicated in a case. Thus the burden of proof in a criminal case is very high. Circumstantial evidence is basically the evidence which is furnished not by direct testimony of an eye witness to the fact to be proved, but by relying on the fact or other auxiliary facts which can be relied upon as incompatible with any result other than truth of principal fact. Circumstantial evidence can be fully apprehended if it is compared in context of direct evidence.
The Court holds that immunity is a concept is granted ratione personae and on the expiration of office, this becomes rationemateriae. The same applies to a head of State. Further, the jus cogensprinciples regarding torture treat it as a crime punishable with severe numbers of years in prison. Thus, it a settled principle of law that a head of State may be liable for acts done in his capacity as an official and no immunity is granted to
In order to establish justice, laws need to be interpreted and judged. When the contents of a law are used to “honor” the criminal's actions the judicial branch will bring justice to the victim and the law. The judicial branch does not prejudice, therefore they judge fairly and justly. The way the judicial branch works makes it so that it establishes justice. In Article Three of the Constitution, it states “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” This means that the judicial branch is the only branch that can judge whether or not an act is considered treason.
The only way Kaffee could get his clients (the two soldiers convicted of crime) away from a long jail-sentence was by proving, in court, that the Colonel had in fact ordered a “Code Red”, which the latter was most-zealously denying. Eventually, the skilled advocate was able to get the Colonel to such a state of irritation that he admitted ordering a “Code Red”. Without individual persistence and zealous advocacy Kaffee would have long lost the case, but he proved, through that trial, that a professional advocate should always stand by his client, in the most devoted way possible, to ensure a fair trial and preservation of
A practitioner should, therefore, choose his or her client’s expert witnesses with care. Real evidence is evidence which can be seen by the court. It can be a material object such as a piece if defective machinery, or a model of a material object, such as a scale model of a building. A person can also be classified as real evidence.
This presumption means, in criminal cases, jury’s and judges have to act as those the accused is innocent until the prosecution conviences them otherwise. If they are not convienced, the accused person doesn’t go to prison. Now that we understand the difference between civil rights and civil liberties – lets focus next on liberties – what they are and where they come
You mentioned in your post that whether the defendant is guilty or not, if they are violated by an officer then the violation needs to be put to light. What are some consequences for the defense attorney if he is caught not bringing evidence (that could alter a trial) to court? What are the defendants’ rights that are being violated by the officer? One of duties that is to be performed by a defense attorney according to America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System is to, “zealously represent the client’s interests within the bounds of the law.” If the defense attorney fails to recognize the violation of his defendants’ rights does that corrupt the duty that is supposed to be performed? Proverbs 19:1 says, “Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool.” When attorneys distorts evidence in any way, it gives the court system a bad reputation with its relationship to the
Furthermore, the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of the accused by allowing the defendant the right to confront his or hers accusers with the 6th Amendments” Confrontational Clause”. The defense attorney, like the prosecution, interviews witnesses that will bear testimony to offset the prosecution’s efforts to convict the defendant. During the Preliminary Hearing, the defense attorney screens and interviews witnesses` that are credible and therefore will bring forth testimony that will persuade the jury by discrediting the prosecutions witnesses’ during the actual trial
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Larry Offutt (“Offutt”), appellant, was convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon, attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, and related charges. On appeal, Austin presents three questions for our review, which we have rephrased as follows: 1. Whether the trial court erred by limiting cross-examination of a state’s witness regarding her involvement in an unrelated offense. 2. Whether the trial court erred in overruling an objection to the prosecutor’s statements on the grounds that the statements impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defense.