In a civil case, the standard of proof is 'on the balance of probabilities,' while in a criminal case, the prosecution must prove its case 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
Section 2 deals with defilement of a person under the age of 15 years, while Section 3 deals with defilement of a person under the age of 17 years.
The standard of proof for diminished responsibility is the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.
It applies solely to murder and, if successful, reduces the verdict to one of manslaughter.
In a civil case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof; in a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proof.
The presumption of innocence requires that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the essential elements of an offence.
A persuasive or legal burden requires a party to prove a fact to the required standard, while an evidential burden requires a party to produce sufficient evidence to justify leaving an issue to be decided by a tribunal of fact.
The legal question was what standard of proof must be met when the prosecution seeks to prove that the accused was insane. The Court of Appeal decided that the applicable standard of proof in such cases was the balance of probabilities.
Section 3(3) imposed a legal burden of proof on the accused to prove that he or she was reasonably mistaken as to age.
The Supreme Court accepted that the provision did not unlawfully violate the presumption of innocence, as it did not relieve the prosecution of proving essential elements of the offense.
The prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the alleged offence.
Section 3(2) states that it is a defence for the defendant to prove that they were reasonably mistaken that the child against whom the offence is alleged had attained the age of 17 years at the time of the alleged offence.
The High Court declared section 3(5) invalid, stating it violated the presumption of innocence as it imposed a legal burden on the accused regarding an essential element of the offence.
It is constitutionally impermissible to impose more than an evidential burden on an accused regarding an essential element of an offence.
In defilement offences, the consent of the young person is immaterial, whereas in rape, the prosecution must prove that the complainant did not consent.
Section 5(4) allows the prosecution to present evidence to counter the accused's claims of insanity or diminished responsibility, depending on which defense the accused is asserting.
The burden of proof is concerned with which party to an action bears the responsibility of proving or disproving the case being made.
At common law, every person was presumed sane, and a person charged with a criminal offence claiming insanity bore the burden of proving it.
In the case of insanity, the defence bears the burden of proving it on the balance of probabilities, unlike common law defences where only an evidential burden is required.
The Supreme Court held that the section imposed a burden of proof on the accused regarding insanity or diminished responsibility, but to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
If an accused claims insanity, the prosecution can present evidence of diminished responsibility, leading to a manslaughter conviction instead of outright acquittal. Conversely, if the accused claims diminished responsibility, the prosecution can argue insanity, which could lead to a complete acquittal.
Woolmington v DPP [1935] A.C. 462.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is any reasonable doubt, the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal.
The court held that the 'reasonable mistake' provision relates to a necessary element of the offence of defilement, not merely a defence.
Lord Sankey acknowledged exceptions for the defense of insanity and any statutory exceptions.
Yes, the burden of proof may shift from one party to another, especially when both parties are putting forward important facts that need to be proved.
Article 6(2) provides that 'Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.'
The persuasive burden is the obligation of a party to meet the requirement that a fact in issue be proved or disproved either by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt.
The standard of proof required is that applicable to civil proceedings, meaning the accused must prove it on the balance of probabilities.
A person convicted of manslaughter may receive a prison sentence, potentially up to life imprisonment, while a person found not guilty by reason of insanity may face psychiatric detention, which could last for a long time depending on their mental health.
The Court of Criminal Appeal held that there was no obligation on the defense to prove that the injuries were accidentally self-inflicted.
