The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and illustrative diagrams and flow charts. This chapter discusses the allocation of the burden of proof in civil and criminal trials, depending on who should bear the risk. In criminal trials the ‘presumption of innocence’ means that the burden is on the prosecution, unless reversed by express or implied statutory provision. The law of evidence safeguards what in some jurisdictions is a civil right backed by the constitution. It is important to understand the difference between the legal and evidential burden and the occasions where they are separately allocated. Tricky areas are where there is a divorce of the legal and evidential burden, primarily in situations where the prosecution cannot expect to put up evidence to anticipate every specific defence the accused may present.
Chapter
This chapter focuses on the burden of proof and presumption of innocence in criminal and civil cases under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It considers the influence of the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) on the allocation of the burden of proof and compares legal/persuasive burden of proof with the evidential burden. It contains a detailed examSination of the case law under this Act and the criteria developed to assess where reverse burdens should apply. It draws on academic commentary in making this analysis. It also looks at situations where the legal and the evidential burden may be split. The leading cases on the standard of proof in civil cases are reviewed.
Chapter
This chapter focuses on the burden of proof and presumption of innocence in criminal and civil cases under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It considers the influence of the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998 on the allocation of the burden of proof and compares legal/persuasive burden of proof with the evidential burden. It contains a detailed examination of the case law under this Act and the criteria developed to assess where reverse burdens should apply. It draws on academic commentary in making this analysis. It also looks at situations where the legal and the evidential burden may be split. It concludes with an overview of the law on presumptions.
Chapter
Titles in the Core Text series take the reader straight to the heart of the subject, providing focused, concise, and reliable guides for students at all levels. This chapter discusses the following: criminal and civil burdens of proof; the ‘legal burden of proof’ and the ‘evidential burden’; the ‘tactical burden’; the prosecution’s legal burden of proof in criminal cases; when the defendant in a criminal case bears the legal burden of proof; the standard of proof; the evidential burden; the judge’s ‘invisible burden’; the burden of proof when establishing the admissibility of evidence; presumptions and the incidence of the burden of proof; and reversal of the burden of proof and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Chapter
Titles in the Core Text series take the reader straight to the heart of the subject, providing focused, concise, and reliable guides for students at all levels. This chapter discusses the following: criminal and civil burdens of proof; the ‘legal burden of proof’ and the ‘evidential burden’; the ‘tactical burden’; the prosecution’s legal burden of proof in criminal cases; when the defendant in a criminal case bears the legal burden of proof; the standard of proof; the evidential burden; the judge’s ‘invisible burden’; the burden of proof when establishing the admissibility of evidence; presumptions and the incidence of the burden of proof; and reversal of the burden of proof and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Chapter
Martin Hannibal and Lisa Mountford
This chapter explains the rules governing the legal and evidential burdens of proof that decide which party has the responsibility of proving a fact in issue to the court. It then discusses the degree of persuasiveness the evidence must attain to satisfy the appropriate standard of proof including the test for a successful submission of no case to answer and considers the human rights issues in those exceptional situations where the accused has the legal burden of proof. For both the prosecution and the defence, the rules that allocate the burden of proof and the degree of proof are fundamental to the outcome of a case at trial.
Book
Andrew L-T Choo
Andrew Choo’s Evidence provides an account of the core principles of the law of civil and criminal evidence in England and Wales. It also explores the fundamental rationales that underlie the law as a whole. The text explores current debates and draws on different jurisdictions to achieve a mix of critical and thought-provoking analysis. Where appropriate the text draws on comparative material and a variety of socio-legal, empirical, and non-legal material. This (sixth) edition takes account of revisions to the Criminal Procedure Rules, the Criminal Practice Directions, and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Codes of Practice. It also examines in detail cases on various topics decided since the last edition was completed, or the significance of which has become clear since then, including:
•
Addlesee v Dentons Europe llp (CA, 2019) (legal professional privilege)
• Birmingham City Council v Jones (CA, 2018) (standard of proof)
• R v B (E) (CA, 2017) (good character evidence)
• R v Brown (Nico) (CA, 2019) (hearsay evidence)
• R v C (CA, 2019) (hearsay evidence)
• R v Chauhan (CA, 2019) (submissions of ‘no case to answer’)
• R v Gabbai (Edward) (CA, 2019) (bad character evidence)
• R v Gillings (Keith) (CA, 2019) (bad character evidence)
• R v Hampson (Philip) (CA, 2018) (special measures directions)
• R v K (M) (CA, 2018) (burden of proof)
• R v Kiziltan (CA, 2017) (hearsay evidence)
• R v L (T) (CA, 2018) (entrapment)
• R v Reynolds (CA, 2019) (summing-up)
• R v S (CA, 2016) (hearsay evidence)
• R v SJ (CA, 2019) (expert evidence)
• R v Smith (Alec) (CA, 2020) (hearsay evidence)
• R v Stevens (Jack) (CA, 2020) (presumptions)
• R v Townsend (CA, 2020) (expert evidence)
• R v Twigg (CA, 2019) (improperly obtained evidence)
• R (Jet2.com Ltd) v CAA (CA, 2020) (legal professional privilege)
• R (Maughan) v Oxfordshire Senior Coroner (SC, 2020) (standard of proof)
• Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corpn Ltd (CA, 2018) (legal professional privilege)
• Shagang Shipping Co Ltd v HNA Group Co Ltd (SC, 2020) (foundational concepts; improperly obtained evidence)
• Stubbs v The Queen (PC, 2020) (identification evidence)
• Volaw Trust and Corporate Services Ltd v Office of the Comptroller of Taxes (PC, 2019) (privilege against self-incrimination)
• Volcafe Ltd v Cia Sud Americana de Vapores SA (SC, 2018) (burden of proof)
