Burden and Standard of Proof in Law

Podcast Beta

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

A trial held without adherence to the burden of proof on prosecution is considered in due course of law.

False

What must the prosecution do in a self-defense case according to Hardy v. Ireland?

Negative the defence.

What is required to establish insanity as a defense according to the Criminal Law Insanity Act 2006?

Not applicable

Proven on balance of probabilities (correct)

Proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Proven by mere assertion

According to DPP v. Dickey 2003, the burden is on the defence to show that duress was present.

False Signup and view all the answers

What presumption exists regarding a child born to a married couple?

The child is presumed to be the husband's child. Signup and view all the answers

What does the term 'res ipsa loquitur' refer to?

The occurrence itself is evidence of negligence. Signup and view all the answers

In the case of R v. Woodcock 1789, what are the requirements for admitting dying declarations?

All of the above Signup and view all the answers

What does the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 state about hearsay evidence?

It can be admitted under certain conditions. Signup and view all the answers

What principle does the case of AG v. O'Brien 1965 establish regarding unlawfully obtained evidence?

Evidence should only be admitted in exceptional circumstances. Signup and view all the answers

DPP v. Kenny 1990 emphasized a good faith approach to the admissibility of evidence.

False Signup and view all the answers

What does the term 'burden of proof' refer to?

The obligation of a party to prove its case in court. Signup and view all the answers

What is required for evidence to be considered corroborative?

It must be independent of the evidence to be corroborated and implicate the accused in the commission of the crime. Signup and view all the answers

In the case of DPP v. McGinley 1998, the SC held that defendants are entitled to cross-examine witnesses.

True Signup and view all the answers

What types of evidence may be admissible in court despite being hearsay?

Social media texts Signup and view all the answers

A lie may be corroboration if it is _____ and relates to a material issue.

deliberate Signup and view all the answers

What warning must be given concerning accomplice evidence?

A corroboration warning must be given where accomplice evidence is presented. Signup and view all the answers

Which act abolished the mandatory requirement for warnings related to child testimony?

Criminal Evidence Act 1992 Signup and view all the answers

CCTV footage is not considered real evidence.

False Signup and view all the answers

What does the Casey warning pertain to?

It is required when the correctness of an identification is challenged. Signup and view all the answers

What must a judge do before allowing expert testimony?

Seek permission from the trial judge. Signup and view all the answers

What does S.1(e) of the Criminal Justice Evidence Act 1924 allow?

Prosecution to ask any question that may incriminate the accused Signup and view all the answers

The relationship in which a communication occurs must be kept confidential for it to be considered privileged.

True Signup and view all the answers

What does the term 'good character' involve according to the document?

Good disposition or reputation. Signup and view all the answers

The accused is allowed to ask questions to establish their own __________.

good character Signup and view all the answers

The accused loses their shield if they voluntarily provide evidence of good character.

True Signup and view all the answers

What is the dominant purpose for litigation privilege?

To prepare for litigation. Signup and view all the answers

What is the exception to the privilege of communications according to the document?

If there is an allegation of fraud Signup and view all the answers

The court has absolute discretion to decide which public interest shall prevail in cases of privilege.

True Signup and view all the answers

What must a person do if they intend to introduce evidence of a witness that involves imputation on a prosecution witness's character?

Provide at least 7 days' notice to the prosecution. Signup and view all the answers

Which case confirmed the principles of public interest privilege?

Ambiorox Ltd & Ors v. Minister for the Environment and Ors 1992 Signup and view all the answers

What is the essential question regarding expert witnesses?

Whether the study and experience will give the witness authority and whether they have the requisite knowledge and experience. Signup and view all the answers

An expert witness’s opinion is always binding on the jury.

False Signup and view all the answers

What should an expert witness state regarding their opinion?

The facts or assumptions upon which their opinion is based. Signup and view all the answers

An expert witness should indicate when a question falls outside their _______.

expertise Signup and view all the answers

Psychologist evidence as to credibility is acceptable in most circumstances.

False Signup and view all the answers

If an expert's opinion is not properly researched due to what they consider _______ data, this must be disclosed.

insufficient Signup and view all the answers

What must be disclosed if an expert changes their view on a material matter after providing a report?

This must be disclosed to the other side and the court. Signup and view all the answers

In which of the following cases was expert evidence regarding the abuse of a victim's family omitted?

Fitzpatrick v. DPP 1997 Signup and view all the answers

The principles established in Makin, Joyce, and Kirwan relate to the admission of evidence that the accused committed offences other than those charged.

True Signup and view all the answers

What does the Domestic Violence Act 1996 state about barring orders?

A barring order can't be placed in respect of a place where the respondent resides if they have a legal beneficial interest in it. Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following statements best describes similar fact evidence?

It is inadmissible to prove a propensity to commit crime. Signup and view all the answers

Match the following cases with their key points regarding bad character evidence:

Makin & Anor v. AG for New South Wales 1894 = Evidence was admissible to show a bad character related to the case. AG v. Kirwan 1943 = Prosecution could not adduce evidence of other crimes unless relevant. DPP v. Morgan 2010 = It was ruled impermissible to decide guilt based on bad character. DPP v. BK 2000 = Examined multiple counts of sexual abuse and admissibility based on probative value. Signup and view all the answers

It is for the ______ to determine whether the accused fell into rage, as they have the experiential insight.

jury Signup and view all the answers

The judge shall give leave if he is satisfied that it would be unfair to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced.

True Signup and view all the answers

What must the judge be satisfied about to allow questions regarding the complainant's sexual history?

That it would be unfair to the accused to refuse to allow the evidence or question. Signup and view all the answers

Which case involved the complainant's hymen being ruptured as evidence?

DPP v. K 2007 Signup and view all the answers

The doctrine of _______ applies in sexual offence trials, allowing a complainant's statement to corroborate their testimony.

complaint Signup and view all the answers

The statement made by the complainant must be made ________ in order to be admissible.

voluntarily Signup and view all the answers

In which case was the consistency of the complainant's statements questioned?

DPP v. Gavin 2000 Signup and view all the answers

What are the three conditions that must be met for the doctrine of complaint to apply?

The content of the complaint must be consistent with the complainant's testimony, made voluntarily, and at the first reasonable opportunity. Signup and view all the answers

What happens if a witness tries to corroborate their own testimony according to the rule against narrative?

It is not permitted. Signup and view all the answers

What did Treacy refuse disclosure for?

There were other ways to get the information. Signup and view all the answers

Lawyers need to be aware of the criminal purpose that prompted advice according to R v. Cox 1884.

False Signup and view all the answers

Which case allowed an appeal regarding the refusal of evidence at trial?

R v. Arlow 1988 Signup and view all the answers

What is waived by the client according to McCullen v. Carty 1998?

Legal privilege. Signup and view all the answers

According to S.1 Criminal Justice Act 1924, can an accused be compelled to disclose communication made to their spouse?

No, never. Signup and view all the answers

Witnesses under 14 years old or with mental incapacity may provide unsworn testimony.

True Signup and view all the answers

A witness's denial of making a statement may require proof under S.4 Criminal Procedure Act _____ 1865.

1865 Signup and view all the answers

What is required for a child witness according to S.14A?

They may use a screen. Signup and view all the answers

All parties can cross-examine a witness about collateral issues.

False Signup and view all the answers

Match the following cases with their significance:

DPP v. T 1988 = Down syndrome witness testimony allowed DPP v. JT 1988 = Wife compellability in rape case R v. Bourke 1858 = Final answers on collateral issues AG v. Hitchcock 1847 = Bribery allegations relevance Signup and view all the answers

What must the court be satisfied of regarding the intelligibility of evidence from child witnesses?

They must be capable of giving an intelligible account. Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Burden and Standard of Proof

Article 38.1 guarantees the right to a trial in due course of law, requiring adherence to the burden of proof.
Presumption of innocence is a cornerstone, affecting how defenses must be disproven by prosecution.
In cases of self-defense, the prosecution must negate the defense (Hardy v. Ireland 1994, DPP v. Barnes 2007).
Insanity as a defense must be established by the accused, as per S.5(1) Criminal Law Insanity Act 2006, requiring proof on the balance of probabilities.
Duress requires clear demonstration that the defendant's free will was overthrown, but the burden can shift to the prosecution to show absence of duress (DPP v. Dickey 2003).
Res ipsa loquitur allows negligence to be inferred from the occurrence itself, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant in specific cases.

Legislation

Diminished responsibility is governed by S.6(1) Insanity Act, where the burden of proof can be reversed (S.6(2)).
Under S.24 OATS 1939, incriminating documents are presumed evidence of membership unless proven otherwise (O'Leary v. AG 1993).
Criminal Law Insanity Act 2006 emphasizes that prosecution must prove possession of explosives knowingly (Hardy v. Ireland 1994).
The evidential burden of proof necessitates establishing a prima facie case for jury consideration (DPP v. Smyth 2010).

Standard of Proof

Balance of probabilities means more likely than not, while beyond a reasonable doubt does not require certainty but a high likelihood (Miller v. Min for Pensions 1947).
When multiple interpretations exist, the jury must favor acquittal unless the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt (DPP v. Donovan 2016).

Presumptions

Accidental death is presumed unless proven otherwise, such as suicide (Harvey v. Ocean Accident 1905).
Legitimacy presumption exists for married couples unless evidence shows infertility or lack of access (H & Anor v. D 1989).
Individuals are presumed dead after seven years without communication (Chard v. Chard 1955).

Unlawfully Obtained Evidence

A distinction exists between mere illegality and deliberate breaches of rights (AG v. O'Brien 1965).
Evidence may be excluded if there is a clear causal link between the breach and the evidence obtained (DPP v. Cullen 1993).
Deliberate and conscious breaches lead to exclusion of evidence unless exceptional circumstances demonstrate otherwise.

Hearsay

Hearsay excludes out-of-court statements from being used to prove the truth of facts asserted (Myers v. DPP 1965).
Exceptions include confessions, res gestae statements made contemporaneously with events, and dying declarations related to identity (R v. Woodcock 1789).

Corroboration

Corroborative evidence must originate from a separate source and implicate the accused in the crime (AG v. Williams 1940).
Criteria for corroboration emphasize the independence and relevance of the evidence in proving a fact at issue.

Problem Areas

Emails and texts may serve as circumstantial evidence or hearsay based on their purpose in legal proceedings.
The admissibility of social media records depends on proper attestation, impacting hearsay considerations (DPP v. Moran 2018).
CCTV and public documents can be classified based on their relevance as real evidence or hearsay.### Independence and Corroboration in Criminal Law
Corroboration Principle: A witness cannot corroborate their own testimony; evidence must implicate the accused and show the necessary ingredients of the crime.
DPP v. D (1993): Medical evidence showing a complainant was interfered with is not sufficient corroboration unless linked to the accused.
Cumulative Evidence: R v. Hill (1988) states that the cumulative effect of evidence may constitute corroboration.
R v. Redpath (1962): Distress of the complainant can serve as evidence under exceptional circumstances but includes risks of fabrication.
DPP v. Reid (1993): The complainant's injuries and distress, independent of her own testimony, supported her account of rape.
R v. Lucas (1981): A lie can corroborate witness testimony if it is deliberate, related to a material issue, proven by independent evidence, and motivated by guilt.

Legal Frameworks for Inferring Guilt

Criminal Justice Act 1984: Inferences can be drawn from an accused's failure to account for evidence or their presence at the crime scene.
OATS 1998: Inferences related to membership in an unlawful organization require proper safeguards and can only be drawn from pre-charge questioning.
Treason Act 1939: Requires corroboration for charges of treason and related offenses.
Road Traffic Act 1961: Conviction cannot rely solely on witness evidence regarding speed.

Accomplice Evidence

Corroboration Warnings: Accomplice evidence requires a warning to the jury due to reliability concerns (AG v. Levison 1932).
Conditional Warnings: Given when the complicity status is unclear (AG v. Carney & Anor 1955).

Witness Protection and Super Grass Evidence

DPP v. Ward (2002): Judicial caution advised regarding super grass evidence due to potential bias and reliability issues; benefit received by witness may affect weight of evidence.

Confessions and Admissions

S.10(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1993: Judges must caution juries about the risks associated with relying on confessions/admissions.

Legal Framework on Child Testimony

Discretion in Warnings: Judges have discretion regarding warnings in cases with child testimony (S.28 Criminal Evidence Act 1992).

Visual Identification Evidence

Visual Identification Process: Witness identification through testimony, bolstered if prior identification occurred.
Casey Warning (AG v. Casey 1963): A warning is mandatory where identification is a key issue to avoid reliance on potentially erroneous witness IDs.

Types of Identification Procedures

Formal Identification: Greatest reliability; conducted under controlled circumstances with witnesses and legal counsel present.
Informal Identification: May introduce risks of misidentification; trial judges must instruct juries on differences in reliability.

Photographic Evidence

DPP v. Rapple (1999): Witnesses must be shown photographs matching descriptions; process must ensure fairness in identification.

CCTV Footage in Evidence

Usage Context: Can serve to support witness credibility, but its use as identifying evidence requires careful consideration of probative value vs. prejudicial effect.

Opinion Evidence Rules

Ultimate Issue Rule: General opinion not permitted on ultimate issues in a case (e.g., a jury must determine fitness to drive based on facts).
Expert Testimony: Must be relevant and through qualified experts; ordinary knowledge of the jury limits the need for expert evidence in some cases.

General Legal Guidelines for Expert Evidence

Natural Justicia Guidelines: Expert evidence must be independent, unbiased, and based on objective facts; any assumptions must be disclosed.
Limits and Restrictions: Expert opinions should not replace the jury’s independent assessment of facts.

Concept of Automatism

Criminal Law Insanity Act: Covers both non-insane automatism and diminished responsibility, requiring clear evidence of mental state.

Other Forms of Evidence

Hypnosis as Evidence: Acceptable provided the hypnotist’s procedure is documented; UK guidelines recommend recording sessions for integrity.

This summary captures essential legal principles and cases regarding corroboration, witness testimony, identification methods, and expert evidence in criminal law within the provided text.### Proceeds of Crime Act 1996

Property over £10,000 can be claimed in court as proceeds of crime if linked to specific illegal activities.
An authorized officer's credible statement regarding possession and control of property can lead to admissible evidence.

Domestic Violence Act 1996

Barring orders cannot apply to residences if the respondent has a legal interest unless the applicant's interest is greater.
The applicant's belief regarding their interest can be used as evidence.

Competitions Amendment Act 1996

Expert testimony is required for breaches of complex competition rules due to their intricate nature.

Criminal Justice Act 2006

Former Gardai’s opinions are acceptable evidence regarding the existence of a criminal organization.

Bad Character Evidence Principles

Prohibition on introducing evidence of unrelated past criminal behavior to establish a predisposition to new charges, preserving the fairness of trials.
Evidence of prior bad acts can be relevant to rebutting defenses or demonstrating intent.

Case Law Highlights

Makin & Anor v. AG for NSW 1894: Admissible evidence of bad character requires clear connection to the current charge.
Boardman v. DPP 1975: Bad character evidence is admissible only if it has strong probative value, not merely prejudicial.
DPP v. Morgan 2010: Bad character evidence cannot be the sole basis for determining guilt or innocence, and must relate to the case.
DPP v. BK 2000: Distinction between similar fact evidence (previous offenses) and system evidence (pattern of behavior) established while weighing probative value against prejudicial effects.

Context on Similar Fact and System Evidence

Similar fact evidence focuses on the underlying factual relationship between acts rather than strict categories.
Evidence connecting similar crimes can show pattern or rebut defenses, allowing inclusion even if prejudicial.

Undermining the Accused’s Reliability

Accused can testify, but may be questioned on past convictions; however, they have protections against irrelevant bad character inquiries.
Established exceptions to this shield, including when the accused opens the door by asserting good character or questioning witness credibility.

Good Character Evidence

Good character does not equal innocence; it reflects reputation and disposition.
Acknowledgment of prior good character can lead to opportunities for the prosecution to introduce contradictory evidence.

Significance of Background Evidence

Admissible to establish context in which an offense occurred, necessary for jury comprehension.
Background evidence of relationships and prior actions relevant to the case narrative can be critical for understanding the circumstances.

Discretion of Trial Judges

Trial judges possess discretion to admit or exclude evidence based on its potential prejudicial impact relative to its probative value.
The balancing of these elements is imperative in maintaining fair trial standards.

Recent Developments in Case Law

DPP v. McNeill 2011: Clarification on the balancing test for admitting evidence and ensuring fair procedures in trials.
DPP v. Power 2018: Further clarification on the admissibility of background evidence and its relevance to the case presented.
DPP v. Clement Limen 2021: Update on provisions for admissible evidence concerning prior offenses captured through established principles that avoid prejudicing the jury.

Conclusion

Collectively, these principles and cases establish protective measures for the accused while ensuring that relevant evidence can be presented to deliver justice effectively.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Test your understanding of the burden and standard of proof in legal proceedings, including relevant cases like O'Leary v. AG and DPP v. Kelly. Explore concepts related to the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. This quiz will enhance your knowledge of important legal principles.