Presumptions in the Nigerian Evidence Law

* 2. newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at the trial, would probably have produced a

Fundamental to the Scottish legal system is discovering the truth. In Scotland, a defendant has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty . The burden of proof lies with the Crown, who must prove their case against a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. From the very beginning of the criminal process - the arrests of the suspect - until the very end - the conviction of the defendant - the state are empowered with many rights, such as the power to detain , which assist them in reaching the truth. Although the state are provided with these rights, there are limitations placed on them in the form of the rights of the defendant, such as the right to remain silent or the right to defend themself either in person or through legal

On the one hand it is evident that terms implied at common law can be ‘implied in law’ or ‘implied in fact’. Terms implied as a matter of fact are said to give effect to unexpressed intentions of the

Now a day’s evidence can change a person’s life in the blink of an eye. “People were often punished for crimes based on the word of one or two individuals, with little concern given to sorting out the truth of the affair” (Hunter 12). But today a person must be tried and some physical evidence is needed in order for a person to be convicted of a crime.

Before we can delve into the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent, each element must be explored individually. Unlike legislation and statue which most times speak to hypothetical situations, judicial precedent is a response to real situation and as such there is a foundation of pragmatism which holds the principle together. As it relates to certainty, the law is established in such a way that it is possible to predict what a decision will be and plan accordingly. There is a sense of security in this element of judicial precedence because once a legal rule has been established it is binding and cannot changed by a later or lower court, individuals can therefore adjust their behavior with regard to the legal rule.

Fourth, the facts that are alleged to establish probable cause must “supported by Oath or affirmation” (Hall, 2016.) In a

b. it is necessary in certain circumstance weather there are no rules or rules do not apply or provide little guideline.

1. In a criminal trial, the defendant must be proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt?

The fact finding process during the trial of a case is one of the most critical aspects in the administration of justice. Every country has its methods to determine how a case is to be tried. It is within the prerogative of every state to determine the best approach in a court trial while considering the immortal principles of natural justice.

When a person is charged with a crime the type of defense that they choose could ultimately determine their fate. There are many different types of defenses that exist in our criminal justice system. In this paper I will be taking a brief look at two different cases that have implored two different types of criminal defenses. I will look at the nature and types of defenses used in the cases and what evidence was used to demonstrate defense. I will describe how justification and excuse played a role in the cases and I will also be describing the outcome of each case.

It is the right of the jury to judge what the facts are, what the law

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

May and Powles view evidence as ‘something’ which tends to prove or disprove something else. In the context of a trial this consists of information placed before the court for the purpose of proving or disproving facts in issue. Beecher-Monas states that in a system based on the rule of law and which aspires to ‘truth’, the accuracy and reliability of such information is essential. The mechanisms available to the court to determine the latter, centre on the presentation of evidence under oath, cross-examination and the observation of witness demeanour .

In today’s society there are rules that define evidence pertaining to a defendant’s trial. These rules are defined as the “The Rules of Evidence” or “The Law of Evidence.” These rules create a safe and orderly environment, promote efficiency, and enhance the quality of evidence that pertain to all criminal trials. These rules restrict what a jury can and cannot hear or see, details of the law, and the importance of the effective performance of the law enforcement officer. Americans are well aware of the rules that govern evidence; but what are they, what do they mean, how do they apply to each case, and how are they broken down.

Prior to this, “fraudulent misstatement” or similar would have been required as a material fact when using the “…often quoted and variously explained” case as Lord Atkin stated when referring to the comments of Parke B .