Burden And Standard Of Proof And Corroboration Flashcards
Fundamental Principle in Criminal Law
What is the ‘fundamental principle in Criminal Law’?
The presumption of innocence, known as the “Woolmington Principle”.
What does the Woolmington principle establishes in criminal law?
This principle establishes that (subject to specific exceptions) the BURDEN OF PROOF lies clearly with the PROSECUTION in relation to all of the elements of the offences.
What is an example of an exception to the Woolmington principle?
Where the Defendant wishes to rely on the defence of insanity (S. 23 Crimes Act 1961) and where there exist specific statutory exceptions for example S. 108(4) Crimes Act 1961.
This is an exception to the Woolmington principle in which the LEGAL BURDEN is unequivocally placed on the DEFENDANT.
What offences where the Woolmington principle “does not apply”?
The law has developed in such a way as to include offences where Woolmington is seen simply to not apply.
These are known as PUBLIC WELFARE REGULATORY OFFENCES.
What is the “purpose” of Public Welfare Regulatory Offences?
Clue: examples provided
To regulate everyday conduct having a tendency to endanger the public or sections of the public, rather than to punish individuals for immoral or otherwise blame worthy conduct.
For example, offences related to maritime and aviation safety.
Standard of Proof: explain burden of proof in relation to “standard required”?
Any party bearing a LEGAL BURDEN OF PROOF must discharge this burden to the STANDARD REQUIRED.
In general, where the legal burden is on the Prosecution it must be discharged “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT”.
Explain ‘contrast’ regarding “beyond reasonable doubt”?
In contrast - any element which the defence bears the burden of proving need only be proved on the “BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES”.
Explain caselaw: R v Wanhalla [2007] 2 NZLR 573 at [49] regarding “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”?
Clue: 4 notes provided
- Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a very high standard of the proof which the Crown will have met only if, at the end of the case, you are sure the accused is GUILTY.
- It is not enough for the Crown to persuade you that the accused is probably guilty or even that he or she is very likely guilty.
- A reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about the guilt of the accused after you have given careful and impartial consideration to all of the Evidence.
- The Court of Appeal has noted that the salient features of the Wanhalla direction are: the rationale for the burden of proof, namely the presumption of innocence; the fact that it is not enough for the Crown to convince the fact-finder of probable guilt; and the description of what a reasonable doubt is
(R v Peato [2009] NZCA 333).
Explain the “balance of probabilities” regarding “insanity”?
Where the Defence is required to prove a particular element (such as INSANITY) on the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES - it must simply show that it is more probable than not.
Explain Section 121 of the Evidence Act 2006 regarding the “balance of probabilities”?
Clue: 3x points provided
- This section governs the general approach and exceptions relating to CORROBORATION, and in doing so it reflects the previous law.
- In general, one witness’s testimony, unsupported by any other evidence, will suffice to prove a case where the court is satisfied that it is RELIABLE and ACCURATE and provides proof to the required standard.
- It does not always follow that the Court will act upon the evidence of one witness; it simply means that it may do so when sufficiently satisfied as to its cogency.
What exceptions are provided in contrast to the “balance of probabilities”?
- There are two types of offence in which the unsupported evidence of one witness is insufficient to support a conviction:
1. Perjury and related offences (S. 108, 110 and 111 Crimes Act 1961)
2. Treason (S. 73 Crimes Act 1961)
Explain Section 121(2) of the Evidence Act 2006?
Section 121(2) provides that there is no requirement for either a general warning to the jury about the dangers of relying on uncorroborated evidence, or a direction relating to the absence of corroboration.
Explain Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2006?
Under Section 122, if the Judge is of the opinion that uncorroborated evidence may be unreliable, he or she may warn the jury of the need for caution.
Explain Section 125(1) of the Evidence Act 2006?
Section 125(1) prohibits a corroboration warning in cases involving child Complainants where the warning would not have been given had the complainant been an adult.
