Burden of Proof

The prosecution opens their case by making a speech to the jury. He introduces himself and states that he is appearing on behalf of the prosecution and introduces the attorney appearing on behalf of the defence. The prosecution will outline each offence and the evidence the jury will hear in proving this. The prosecutions’ speech sets out the burden of proof and the standard of proof which they have to prove in order to secure a conviction in the case. This is specific to the offence and will be based on the elements of the offence necessary to show the defendant’s guilt. The prosecution’s opening statement is a summary of the case at hand and the evidence in which they intend to adduce to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant indeed committed the crime. Where the prosecution propose to adduce a certain item

According to the woolmington principle the burden of proof is lie on the prosecution and till the end of the trial, the accused (criminal procedure) is presumed to be innocent

In 2003, the Criminal Justice Act has been amended and thus has altered the legal principle of double jeopardy in England and Wales. The principle of double jeopardy is the act of prosecuting someone a second time for an offence for which this person has already been tried. The amendment provided in 2003 have stated that double jeopardy could take place for certain offences and in some circumstances. Indeed, if new convicting evidence is brought to the light, a retrial might happen. However, this does not happen to any offence, the latter has to be in the list of the offence eligibles for retry in the Schedule 5 Part I of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. This list includes crimes such as murder, sexual offences and war crimes. It is for this reason that the topic of jeopardy is quite controversial in the eyes of many people. In this essay, the advantages and disadvantages of double jeopardy will be analysed looking at different sources such as cases and legislations.

The M 'Naugten rule was the first instance when the “not guilty by reason of insanity” was used in western cultures and is still used in some court rulings today.

v. Pickton would be R. v. Ranger and R. v. Suzack. R. v. Ranger is a case that demonstrates the theories of liability. In Ranger’s case, the accused was charged with the murder of his ex-girlfriend and sister, in which the accused claims that his cousin was the one who committed the crime. The Crown relied on two theories that: either the accused killed both the victims himself with the help from his cousin, or the accused’s cousin murdered the victims with the help of the accused. The trial judge also told the jury that they would still find the accused guilty even if they were not present at the event as an aider or abettor (para. 89). The accused was convicted of first degree murder. The different theories of liability in this case is not whether or not the accused was physically present at the scene, but the fact that the accused could have had the evil intention as an aider or abettor to the crime; those who are associated is guilty of the attempt to commit the crime. Similarly, in R. v. Suzack, the appellants were charged with the murder of an officer on duty. Both testified against each other, claiming that the other person was the one who pulled the fatal shot on the officer. Both appellants claimed that they had no actual intention of killing the officer; the Crown took the position of convicting both appellants with the same crime, as co-perpetrators (para. 1). In the case of Suzack, there was not a need to conclusively determine which

In determining if there were reasonable grounds for defence, the jury may have regard to the deceased’s general reputation for violence. In Blyton’s case, his father was a ‘bad alcoholic with a temper’ and had a history of domestic abuse. Blyton’s defence argued that this history contributed to Blyton’s heightened awareness of danger and lead to an instinctive reaction by Blyton to stab his father when rushed.

To convict an individual of a criminal offence, the prosecution must be able to prove to the Jury or Magistrate that the individual is criminally responsible. This is achieved by proving the Mens Rea (guilty mind) and Actus Reus (guilty act) of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

We have repeatedly held that a verdict may not be directed unless the evidence all points one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inference

``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the

In Section 190.1, the trial would happen in three stages. First, the accused individual's guilt will primarily be examined, and if they are found guilty, in certain circumstances where they were previously accused of murder, they would be considered guilty for those crimes as well. Second, If the defendant was charged previously of first or second degree murder, those previous convictions will have to be investigated. Third, if the individual is found guilty of murder and other previous convictions were proven true, and he is trying to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, his sanity should be examined. If found sane, his punishment should then be

Innocent until proven guilty is a phrase that applies to our judicial system in modern times; however, when the play Doubt by John Patrick Stanley was written this phrase did not always apply. The play is a parable that makes you think about how gossip and rumors can cause havoc and potentially ruin someone’s career. In the play the rumors that are flying are rumors about whether or not Father Flynn is innocent or guilty to the crime of molesting a young boy named Donald Muller. Critics still argue whether he was innocent or guilty to the crime today, and no answer is known. However, based on the evidence in Patrick Shanley’s play Doubt: A Parable, one could conclude that Father Flynn is innocent due to the fact that he had reasonable evidence

Similar to how the accused is innocent until proven guilty, the rule states that the accused is assumed sane “unless the defense proved at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong" (Francone). This rule is now a standard in the United Kingdom and in almost half the states in America. The next test is the Model Penal Code, which states that “a criminal defendant must be found not guilty by reason of insanity if he is diagnosed with a relevant mental defect” (FindLaw). The mental defects could range anywhere from severe mental retardation to schizophrenia. The test was adopted in the 1970s, but it quickly became unfavorable after John Hinckley Jr. tried to assassinate President Reagan in 1981 and was found not guilty by reason of insanity because of the test’s loose rules. Soon after, the federal government went back to using the M’Naghten Rule because it was

In order for a trial to be brought, the police and prosecutors might be able to prove that the elements of the particular offence are present. In this criminal case both Actus reus, Mens rea as well causation was clearly shown through the behavior of Katherine Knight.

Common law also permitted the prosecution to adduce evidence that was relevant to the accused’s guilt of the offence charged,

‘R v Stone; R v Dobinson’ is significant as it addresses the point of ‘duty of care’ and the outcome was described as “highly controversial because of the low capabilities of the two accused” . Appellant Gwendoline Dobinson was treated differently to appellant John Edward Stone due to her gender. Dobinson was expected to care for Fanny due to women being the “primary care-givers in domestic relationships” , proving that “the rule on voluntary undertaking of responsibility potentially remains structurally gendered” . The case was dealt within the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal by Geoffrey lane LJ, Neild and Croom-Johnson JJ. The appeals against conviction were dismissed although the appeal by Stone against his sentence was allowed, altering his sentence. The decision was also influenced namely “whether in a case of manslaughter it is necessary to prove that the defendant was reckless as to whether the victim would suffer death of serious bodily harm” .