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
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
Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta, Laurel Baig, Mary Fan, Christopher Gosnell, and Alex Whiting
The Statutes of the International Criminal Court, and of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda enumerate a list of rights that mirrors many of the same rights as are found in international human rights instruments and domestic constitutions. These various rights may be distilled into six minimum principles: no implicit or explicit measure requiring self-incrimination; adjudication by impartial judges; a presumption of innocence and corresponding burden of proof on the prosecutor; prompt and detailed communication of the charges and sufficient time, opportunity, and resources to challenge those charges; trial without undue delay; and a public hearing. This chapter discusses the interpretation of these rights and principles before international criminal courts, and their application to selected practical issues.
Chapter
This chapter introduces the principles and key concepts underlying the law of evidence, with an emphasis on criminal evidence. It reviews Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), now part of English law as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998. It concludes by highlighting the importance of analysis of the relevance of the facts in a trial.
Chapter
This chapter introduces the principles and key concepts underlying the law of evidence, with an emphasis on criminal evidence. It reviews Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), now part of English law as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). It points to factors which are reducing adversarialism in English criminal trials. The risks, along with the advantages, of the increasing use of computer technology in presenting evidence, are illustrated by reference to the wrongful prosecutions of hundreds of Post Office counter staff for dishonesty offences. The chapter concludes by highlighting the importance of analysis of the relevance of the facts in a trial.
Chapter
David Harris, Michael O’Boyle, Ed Bates, and Carla Buckley
This chapter discusses Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial in both criminal and non-criminal cases. In all cases, it guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing trial within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. There are particular guarantees for persons subject to a criminal charge, including the right to be presumed innocent, to be informed of the charge, to adequate time and facilities to prepare the accused’s defence, to legal assistance, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to an interpreter.
Chapter
Strict liability arises if mens rea is not required in relation to one or more elements of the actus reus of an offence. In many cases, the defendant may be convicted regardless of whether his conduct was intentional, knowing, reckless or negligent with respect to a requisite element of the offence charged. This chapter explains strict liability and how it differs from absolute liability. It discusses strict liability and the presumption of innocence under Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, offences of strict liability at common law, statutory offences of strict liability and how to determine whether a statutory offence is one of strict liability, the justification for strict liability, and the reduction of the operation of strict liability in the criminal law.
