Free Law Dissertations - Question 1: The Law Of Criminal Evidence (1) In Criminal Proceedings, The
Question 1: The Law of Criminal Evidence
(1)
In criminal proceedings, the legal burden of proof rests with the Crown Prosecution and the standard to be established is that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Viscount Sankey LC in Woolmington v DPP states:
If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidencethe prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal
The reason for this standard is that there is a presumption of innocence under s 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It has been established that Jaspreet killed her husband and therefore, there is enough evidence for the prosecution to establish prima facie that Jaspreet murdered her husband. Jaspreet has the evidential burden of providing a prima facie case for the defences of provocation and self-defence that would create doubt as to the nature of her mens rea, which, for murder, is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
However s 2(2) of the Homicide Act 1957 places a legal burden on the defendant to prove diminished responsibility to the standard of a balance of probabilities but, since the case of R v Lambert (Steven), the burden of proof on the defendant can never be more than an evidential burden, in accordance with the compatibility requirement under s 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, as this would refute Article 6(2) of the Convention.
As it stands, Jane must seek medical evidence for Diminished Responsibility from two medical practitioners, in accordance with s 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991.
(2)
In accordance with the judgement of Taylor LJ in DPP v Watkins the mischief that is being prevented by s 5(1)(b) of the 1988 Act is that of unfit or over-the-limit individuals driving a motor vehicle. Accordingly, the nature of ‘being in charge’ of the vehicle is that it is the ‘gravamen’ of the offence and therefore, the defendant need not have been driving in order to be guilty but need only have done or intended to do so. The prosecution carries the legal and evidential burden.
s 5(2) of the 1988 Act states that it is a defence, if at the time of the offence, there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle while the defendant was over the limit. The defendant may therefore adduce evidence to satisfy this defence and will only bear an evidential burden that will have the sole aim of raising doubt as to guilt. This interpretation, by Clarke LJ in Sheldrake v DPP prevents s 5(2) from breaching s 6(2) of the Convention.
Imtiaz’s statement of sleeping in the car without any intention to drive and the possession of the car keys by his son, Anand, will throw doubt on the prosecution’s legal burden to establish that Imtiaz intended to drive.
Dissertations - Free Law Dissertations
