Pros And Cons Of The Legal Burden Of Proof Evidence

Maliciously wounding another person is a criminal offence. Hence in this trial, the legal burden of proof will be on the prosecution in accordance with Woolmington v DPP , to prove that Richard is guilty of the offence. The evidential burden is also on the prosecution as they bear the legal burden in the case. However, if Richard wishes to use a common law defence or a statutory defence, the evidential burden is on him to adduce sufficient evidence for the issue to go before the tribunal of facts. The legal burden is then on the Crown to disprove the issue that had been raised. The standard of proof in this trial would be for the crown to prove Richard’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as dictated by Miller v Minister of Pensions .

The prosecution
DNA fingerprinting of blood on the trainers obtained from Richard’s house was a match for Oliver. R v Doheny and Adams lays down the guidelines for admission of DNA evidence in court. This requires an expert to calculate random occurrence ratio and explain the DNA evidence to the court. This is required as it is not possible to get a unique match for DNA using traces obtained at crime scenes. The judge then has to direct the jury to decide if the DNA pointed towards Richard’s guilt based on other corroboration evidence. This is a circumstantial evidence, and requires the evaluation of innocent explanations. The crown prosecution service’s Guidance on Expert Evidence requires prosecutors to be cautious when dealing with DNA evidence, as there are other reasons for the presence of the DNA such as it being a chance match or being planted or contaminated. It could also be a result of an innocent encounter between Oliver and
According to this, the conviction can be adduced as evidence, which will establish a persuasive presumption. Hence, if Richard is convicted of maliciously wounding Oliver and Oliver brings a civil action against him, the fact that he was convicted can be admitted as evidence. His conviction will result in the assumption that the assault did in fact take place, unless Richard prove on a balance of probabilities that it should not be assumed so, and adduces evidence to prove it. Hence, the legal and evidential burden in the civil action will fall on Richard. . The standard of proof while proving the contrary has been discussed a lot. Some argue that the standard is higher than that on the balance of probabilities. However, in McIlkenny v Chief Constable of West Midlands Lord Diplock stated that it is on the balance of probabilities, but after being convicted via a proper hearing, it will be “an uphill task”. As it would be difficult to prove the conviction wrong, Richard will most probably have to