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 .#
My final recommendation is that, if both the accused person and the prosecutor agree to the accused person being tried by a Judge alone, the court must make the order unless the court is satisfied that the order is not in the interests of justice which can be seen under section 118 of Western Australia’s the Criminal Procedures Act 2004. In conclusion, I believe the amendment to the jury system provides an incredibly effective delivery of justice while still maintaining the accused’s right of presumption of innocence and right to a trial by jury referred to by Justice
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.
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
However, what if it were instead that we accepted a person is "guilty until proven innocent". In this case, we would have to go through every applicable law in the United States and prove that a person has not broken a single one of those laws to be truly innocent. This isn't only unreasonable, but almost impossible to go through every condition necessary to verify that a person is innocent. And with this reasoning, every person in the United States would be classified as "guilty," and we would almost never be able to prove otherwise. This analysis is very similar to how Karl Popper proposes we solve the problem of induction.
If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained .#
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
At common law, there exists a number of fundamental rights for those being questioned by police. In this regard, the emergence of the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence represents a ‘landmark event in the history of Anglo-American criminal procedure.’ As we shall see, these principles are intrinsically linked to the presumption of innocence and burden of proof. Policy makers in Northern Ireland contended that defendants were afforded too much of an advantage by virtue of these rights and that dealing with the ‘wall of silence’ in the interviewing of terrorist suspects necessitated the curtailment of these rights. After a short discussion on the history of these concepts, the focus in the second part will primarily
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.