Law of Evidence and Proof Flashcards
Burden of Proof
Woolmington Principle: Presumption of Innocence
The fundamental principle in Criminal Law is the presumption of innocence, known as the Woolmington Principle.
This principle establishes that, subject to specific statutory exceptions, the burden of proof lies clearly with the prosecution in relation to all of the elements of the offence.
The fact that the prosecution bears the ultimate burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that the defence need not put forward any sort of case at all. In some cases, the defence will have a practical obligation, evidence burden, the burden of proof may be reversed.
Burden of Proof
Obligation on the Defence
If the Prosecution proves facts from which it can be concluded that the defendant committed the act with the requisite mental element, then the Defendant has to produce some story or evidence if he or she wants to suggest the conclusion is wrong.
This is not the burden of proof - the Defendant does not have to prove anything. It applies where Defendants wish to state that they did not do the act or have the necessary mental element.
Burden of Proof
Evidential Burden on Defence Overview
The Defence may wish to put up a defence to the charge. In presenting its case, the prosecution is under no obligation to negate all possible defences that might be available to a Defendant. Once the basic elements have been proved, it is up to the defendant to point to some evidence that suggest an explanation, such as, for example, that she was acting in self defence.
Where the Defendant wishes to put up a defence, it is not just a “practical obligation” as discussed above, rather, there is an “evidential burden” to the defendant.
Having an evidential burden means that a defence cannot be left to the jury or the judge unless it has been made “a live issue” by the defence. It is not a burden of proof, and once it is made a “live issue” then the prosecution must destroy the defence, because the burden of proof remains where that case puts it - the prosecution. The ultimate question for the jury is always - “has the prosecution proved its case?”
Burden of Proof
Exceptions
Exceptions to the Woolmington Principle in which the legal burden is placed on the defendant.
- The most common example is the defence of insanity (s23(1) Crimes Act 1961).
- Possess offensive weapon, in circumstances that prima facie show an intention to use it to commit an offence involving bodily injury then provides a defence where the defendant can prove absence of such intent.
Burden of Proof
Public Welfare Offences
Wilmington Principle may not apply:
The purpose of such offences is to regulate everyday conduct having a tendency to endanger the public or sections of the public. For these offences, once the prosecution has proved the acts reus there is no further need to prove mens rea and the burden passes to the defendant to prove a total absence of fault as a defence.
These are “strict liability” offences, which may be seen as sitting outside the Woolmington Principle, as opposed to a true exception.
Standard of Proof
Discharging burden of proof
Any party bearing a legal burden of proof must discharge this burden to the standard required.
In general, where the legal burden is on the prosecution it must be discharged “beyond reasonable doubt”. Any element which the defence bears the burden of proving need only be proved on the “balance of probabilities”.
Standard of Proof
Beyond Reasonable Doubt
R v Wanhalla
“An honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about the guilt of the defendant after you have given careful and impartial consideration to all of the evidence.”
Standard of Proof
Presumption of Innocence
R v Wanhalla
“The starting point is the presumption of innocence. You must treat the accused as innocent until the Crown has proved his or her guilt.
The presumption of innocence means that the accused does not have to give or call any evidence and does not have to establish his or her innocence.”
Standard of Proof
Role of the Crown
R v Wanhalla
“The Crown must prove the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a very high standard of proof which the Crown will have met only if, at the end of the case, you are sure that the accused is guilty.
It is not enough that the Crown to persuade you that the accused is probably guilty or even that he or she is likely guilty. On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty when dealing with the reconstruction of past events and the Crown does not have to do so.”
Standard of Proof
Balance of Probabilities
Where the defence is required to prove a particular element, such as insanity, on the balance of probabilities, it must simply show that it is more probable than not. If the probabilities are equal, the burden is not discharged.
Rules of Evidence
The rules of evidence determines the form in which, and the means by which, evidence may be presented to the court. They are to be found both in specific statutory provisions and in case law.
Burden of Proof
Lies with the Prosecution (Woolmington Principle) except where:
- Defence of insanity is claimed
- Specific statutory exceptions exist
- Offence is a public welfare regulatory offence.
