Fundamental of Criminal Law

1.

A person is criminally liable if he is guilty of an offence. The criminal law consists of complex and sometimes, contradictory rules which, when applied to a set of facts, should allow is to conclude whether or not a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime. You will see that we can reach a conclusion as to liability only by deciding whether the defendant (D) is responsible for the conduct that forms that basis of the charge ( actus reus) and he either had the prohibited state of mind ( mens rea) or none was needed for an offense of strict liability and there is no defence.

BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof means the requirement of party to adduce sufficient evidence to persuade the fact-finder (magistrate or jury) to a standard set by law, that a particular fact is true.

In Woolmington, the HL held that there is a 'golden thread' running throughout the criminal law, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the D is guilty, not for the defendant to prove he is innocent. Viscount Sankey said the presumption of innocence is part of the common law 'and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.'

What it means is that the defendant has the burden of proving insanity and an Act of Parliament can place the burden of proving some fact on the defence.

Therefore, it is not always true to say that the D is guilty until proven guilty, for there are certain defences which D must prove, and if he cannot, he may well be convicted. For almost all criminal law studies, the only defences where the D has to prove any thing are:
1. Insanity
2. Dinimished responsibility.

Whenever the burden of proof is reversed to the D, he has to prove the defence on a balance of probabilities.

*****