In fact, Viscount Sankey L.C. in outlining the duty of the prosecution stated that there are the exceptions of insanity and statutory exception, under which onus is on the accused to prove. Thus, for the purposes of this exercise, the stated exceptions will require thorough consideration, in order to fully establish the extent to which the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence protects the rights 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, 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.
The question requires one to discuss as to what extent has the “Presumption of Innocence” as articulated by Viscount Sankey in the landmark case of Woolmington v DPP  , has changed in light of Human Rights Act [HRA] 1998. Woolmington v DPP, a case which reached the House of Lords [ HOL] was where the Presumption of Innocence was first articulated # . In delivering his judgement for a unanimous Court, Viscount Sankey made his famous "Golden thread’ decision . ‘Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law a single golden thread is always visible, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty subject to... any statutory exception and the defence of insanity . 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.
Under section 28, the Act placed the burden of proof on the defendant to establish that he lacks knowledge. The House of Lords held that the way section 28 functions undermined the presumption of innocence. Having regards to section 3(1) of the HRA 1998, the legal burden has been read down to only an evidential burden. The justification is that, if the legal burden remains on the defendant, this means that the jury must still convict the defendant even though they are indecisive on whether the defendant had knowledge of the possession of controlled drugs just because the defendant failed to prove on a balance. It was when a provision placed the burden of proving an essential element on the defendant; it becomes incompatible with Article 6(2) of the
The court shall allow the plea provided the following requisites concur: (a) The lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged; and (b) The Plea must be within the consent of both the offended party and the prosecutor. The consent of the offended party will not be required if said party, despite due notice, fails to appear during the arraignment. Section 2 of rule 116 of the Rules of Court present the basic requisites upon which plea bargaining may be made. The rules however, used the word may in the second sentence of Section 2, denoting an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the accused to make such plea. Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the accused.
The example of express statutory reversal is s2(2) of the Homicide Act 1957 (HA 1957) which stated: ‘On a charge of murder, it shall be for the defence to prove that the person charged is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder.’ Besides, the effect of implied statutory reversal can be seen in R v Turner where the court held that it was for the defendant to prove that he had been granted a licence to sell sugar. Although Viscount Sankey created the exceptions for the general rule, the Criminal Law Revision Committee was strongly in opinion that the defendant should bear the evidential burden only as refer to their 11th Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee Evidence in
Conspiracy can be proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence or by both. Though to establish the charge of conspiracy there must be an agreement, there need not be proof of direct meeting or combination, nor need the parties be brought into each other’s presence; the agreement be inferred from the circumstances raising a presumption of a common concerted plan to carry out the unlawful design. 'Confessions'-which is a terminology used in criminal law is a species of 'admissions' as defined in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act. An admission is a statement-oral or documentary which enables the court to draw an inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. It is trite to say that every confession must necessarily be an admission,
Contrasting methodologies with breaking down the components of a wrongdoing, in the present angle the courts and authors utilize the expression actus reus and mens rea in distinctive faculties and it can't be attested that one use is certainly right and others off-base. Glanville Williams composes on the rule of such viewpoints, for example, • An actus reus + mens rea – Defences = Guilt As per this universal perspective point a man may bring about an actus reus with mens rea yet not be liable of the wrongdoing being referred to in view of the presence of aDefence.
Introduction Definition of tort of strict liability and Rylands v Fletcher Under both Malaysian Law and English Law, even though tort law is predominantly a fault-based tort, there are still exceptions. For example, the tort of strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher originated from the tort of nuisance which then developed to become quite distinct from the tort of nuisance while strict liability is a term used to impose liability on defendant without the fault to his part. Elements of liability under rule of Rylands v Fletcher Per Blackburn J in Court of Exchequer Chamber, ‘the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands… likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its
INTRODUCTION Since it was found that it would be difficult for the victim to prove the minute aspects of existence of duty and the breach of such duty, with irrevocable evidence, and that all cases might not attract the maxim res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself), the courts evolved the principle of ‘no fault liability’. No fault liability has evolved into strict liability through the landmark case of Ryland v. Fletcher in 1868, and into absolute liability in India as result of another leading case M.C. Mehta v. Union of India in 1987. ‘No fault liability’ — the meaning of this phrase is clear with the words that form the phrase. There might not be a fault per se but if an activity is so dangerous that it may constitute constant danger to person and property, the person who performs such an activity must be liable even if his or her fault is not present.