Principles and procedures to admit and exclude evidence - Burden and standard of proof

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

Understanding the admission and exclusion of evidence, especially the concepts of burden and standard of proof, is essential for maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings. These principles ensure fair trials and are vital for effective advocacy. For those preparing for the SQE1 FLK2 exam, a clear understanding of these ideas is key not only for exam success but also for applying evidence law in practice. This article explores the burden and standard of proof, focusing on their roles in both criminal and civil cases, and their relationship with human rights.

The Burden of Proof: Legal and Evidential

The burden of proof involves a party's responsibility to present convincing evidence in court. This is divided into the legal burden and the evidential burden.

Legal Burden

Known as the persuasive burden, the legal burden is the responsibility to prove a key fact. Typically:

  • The prosecution holds this burden in criminal cases.
  • The claimant holds it in civil cases.

This was highlighted in the landmark case of Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462, where Lord Sankey LC stated:

"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt..."

Exceptions to this include:

  1. Insanity: As seen in R v Codere (1916) 12 Cr App R 21, where defendants must prove insanity on the balance of probabilities.

  2. Statutory Exceptions: Some statutes assign the legal burden to defendants for certain defenses, such as under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 regarding diminished responsibility in murder cases.

Evidential Burden

The evidential burden requires a party to present sufficient evidence to raise an issue for the court. This burden can shift between parties during a case.

For instance, if a defendant argues self-defense, they must present initial evidence. Once this is done, the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. This was established in R v Lobell [1957] 1 QB 547, where Lord Goddard CJ noted:

"Once evidence of self-defence is raised, it is for the prosecution to negative it."

Standards of Proof

The standard of proof reflects how certain a fact must be proved in court. This varies between criminal and civil cases.

Criminal Standard: Beyond Reasonable Doubt

In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". This high standard shows the principle of safeguarding the innocent.

Judges traditionally avoided defining "beyond reasonable doubt", but R v Majid [2009] EWCA Crim 2563 provided guidance, suggesting jurors must be "sure" of guilt.

Civil Standard: Balance of Probabilities

In civil cases, the proof standard is "on the balance of probabilities", meaning it must be more likely than not that the defendant is liable. When defendants hold the legal burden in criminal defenses, they still meet the civil standard, such as in cases of diminished responsibility.

Reverse Burdens and Human Rights Considerations

Reverse burdens, where the responsibility shifts to the defendant, raise important legal and human rights issues. This is particularly true concerning the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The European Court of Human Rights and UK courts assess reverse burdens' fairness. In R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37, criteria were established:

  1. Is the reverse burden justified and proportionate?
  2. Does it serve a legitimate aim?
  3. Is it appropriately related to that aim?

Courts often interpret these burdens as evidential to align with Article 6 ECHR, as demonstrated in Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43, where Lord Bingham stated:

"The court should not be astute to find that a reverse burden of proof has been imposed, unless the language of the statute makes it plain that this was the intention of Parliament."

Practical Application and Case Studies

Case Study 1: Drug Possession with Intent to Supply

Consider Alex, charged under section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971:

  1. The prosecution must prove:

    • Alex possessed cocaine.
    • Alex intended to supply it.

  2. If Alex claims personal use:

    • Alex must raise this issue initially.
    • The prosecution must then disprove it.

  3. If Alex claims lack of knowledge:

    • Alex must meet both the evidential and legal burden.
    • The standard is balance of probabilities.

This case demonstrates the interaction of burdens and standards in criminal proceedings.

Case Study 2: Diminished Responsibility in Murder

Regarding Riley's murder charge and claim of diminished responsibility:

  1. The prosecution must prove murder elements beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. Riley must provide initial evidence for diminished responsibility and prove it by balance of probabilities.

  3. If successful, the conviction may be reduced to manslaughter.

This highlights how reverse burdens affect trial outcomes.

Conclusion

A strong command of burden and standard of proof principles is essential for SQE1 FLK2 exam success and legal practice. These concepts shape every stage of legal proceedings. Important points include:

  1. Differences between legal and evidential burdens.
  2. Standards of proof in criminal and civil cases.
  3. The impact of reverse burdens on human rights.
  4. How these principles apply in practice.

By understanding these principles, aspiring legal professionals prepare for exams and the broader challenges of justice and fairness in legal careers.