Law

Case 1

Robert worked as a shop assistant at the Cureys shop. He was accused of stealing an iPod by the manager, who told Robert that if he admitted taking the device, he would take the matter no further, but that if he did not admit it, he would contact the police. Robert admitted taking the iPod but the manager 'went back on his word' and called the police. Robert was arrested and questioned at the police station. Robert asked to consult a solicitor on his arrival but the police told him that it would only delay matters and they would release him anyway, provided he co-operated and confessed. Robert confessed to the offence and in the early hours of the morning was charged and released on bail to appear at court at a later date. The next day, Robert's colleagues, Asif and Molly, were also both arrested for stealing iPods. Neither Asif nor Molly made any comment in their police interviews. Molly said she remained silent because she was acting on her solicitor's advice. Both were charged and bailed.

Molly gave evidence at trial and, although initially she denied the offence, she later admitted taking the iPods. She claimed that she had only done it because she knew Asif had mental health problems and, in her words, was 'absolutely insane'. He had threatened to break her legs if she did not join in with the theft and she believed that he would carry out his threat. That is, she claimed that she had the defence of duress.

Case Solution

The burden of proof (or burden of proof) is an expression of United Kingdom's first law that says who is required to prove a particular fact before the court . The foundation of the burden of proof lies on an old maxim of law states that "normal is assumed, the abnormal test." Therefore, whoever invokes something that breaks the normal state, it must be tested. Basically, what is meant by this aphorism is that the burden of proving job or a statement should be on those who break the normal state (which claims to have a new truth about a subject)

Discussion

In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Proof beyond a reasonable adoubt adoes anot arequire athat athe aproof abe aso aclear athat ano apossibility aof error can exist, nor does it mean athat ano adoubt aexists aas ato athe aaccused's aguilt. It is unlikely that any criminal prosecution could meet this burden. The burden of proof connotes athat aevidence aestablishes aa aparticular apoint ato aa amoral acertainty, aand ait ais abeyond adispute athat aany areasonable aalternative ais apossible. The areasonable adoubt astandard ahas abeen adefined ato amean athat aevidence amust abe aso aconclusive aand acomplete athat aall areasonable adoubts aare aremoved. However, reasonable doubt will be found to exist if athe aevidence aproduced aonly ademonstrates athat ait ais aslightly amore aprobable athat ...