The facts, for example where guilt is based upon an objective evaluation such as whether the accused’s driving was dangerous [ Note: In some instances this direction will not be appropriate because the accused may be guilty even if there is no dispute over You that the account given by the accused should not be accepted as a version of events that could reasonably be true.] The accused does not have to prove that his/her version is true. The fact the accused has given/called evidence before you does not alter the burden of proof. [If the defence has called evidence (or relies on an account in a police interview) and a Liberato direction is not considered necessary: , substantial impairment at , mental illness at .] What it means is that a person charged withĪ criminal offence is presumed to be innocent unless and until the Crown persuades a jury that the person is guilty beyond It is notįor the accused to prove his/her innocence but for the Crown to prove his/her guilt.Ī critical part of the criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence. There is no obligation on the accused to prove any fact or issue that is in dispute. That burden rests upon the Crown in respect of every element or essential fact that makes up the offence charged. As this is a criminal trial the burden or obligation of proof of the guilt of the accused is placed squarely on the Crown.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |