Evidence Law - Imposing Legal Burden of Defendant
Imposing a legal burden upon a defendant will negate the principle of presumption of innocence. If a defendant has to prove their innocence than it would automatically and unconsciously bring up the issue that they were never considered innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence was first articulated in the case of Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462, 461 where Viscount Sankey LC stated that:
‘Throughout the web of English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilty subject to... No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained’
This statement of the nature of the legal burden of proof in criminal trial is basically a summary of the important presumption that highlights our criminal justice system, that a person is presumed innocent till proven guilty. In the case of McIntosh v Lord Advocate [2001] 3 WLR , Lord Bingham referred to the judgement of Sachs J in the case of State v Coetzee [1997] where the importance of the principle as explained. Lord Bingham explained that:
The starting point of any balancing enquiry where constitutional rights are concerned must be that the public interest in ensuring that innocent people are not convicted... Hence the presumption of innocence, which serves not only to protect a particular individual on trial, but to maintain public confidence in the enduring integrity and security of the legal system’.
The presumption of innocence is supported by the European Convention of Human Rights; Article 6(2) states that ‘anyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law’. Furthermore the Human Rights Act 1998 supports the presumption of innocence as well as the European Convention of Human Rights. An issue that is faced by the court in
‘Throughout the web of English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilty subject to... No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained’
This statement of the nature of the legal burden of proof in criminal trial is basically a summary of the important presumption that highlights our criminal justice system, that a person is presumed innocent till proven guilty. In the case of McIntosh v Lord Advocate [2001] 3 WLR , Lord Bingham referred to the judgement of Sachs J in the case of State v Coetzee [1997] where the importance of the principle as explained. Lord Bingham explained that:
The starting point of any balancing enquiry where constitutional rights are concerned must be that the public interest in ensuring that innocent people are not convicted... Hence the presumption of innocence, which serves not only to protect a particular individual on trial, but to maintain public confidence in the enduring integrity and security of the legal system’.
The presumption of innocence is supported by the European Convention of Human Rights; Article 6(2) states that ‘anyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law’. Furthermore the Human Rights Act 1998 supports the presumption of innocence as well as the European Convention of Human Rights. An issue that is faced by the court in
Bibliography: R v Lambert [2001] 2 Cr App R 511, HL Sheldrake v DPP; Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 2002) UKHL 43 HL [ 20 ]. Sheldrake v DPP; Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 2002) UKHL 43 HL [ 21 ] [ 22 ]. Sheldrake v DPP; Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 2002) UKHL 43 HL