Standard of Proof

Question 1

*HM Advocate v Hayes 1973 SLT 202

Presumption of law

Answer 1

 Said that it was a general legal principle that applied to all courts that all defendants are to be given the presumption of innocence.
 P.s. also gives authority on what BRD involves. (gives a few parameters)

Question 2

***Fox v Patterson 1948 JC 104

Presumptions of fact

Answer 2

 Individual charged with theft of bronze, but was found guilty of reset.
 The accused gave evidence stating that there was a person who sold the bronze to him and produced a receipt from this person.
 The police were unable to track down this person.
 The sheriff disbelieved the defendant’s evidence and convicted him.
 The defendant appealed.
 ** Held that, if the possession of stolen goods is to raise a presumption of guilt which an accused must rebut in order to escape conviction, three conditions must concur, viz., (1) the goods must be found in his possession, (2) they must have been recently stolen, and (3) there must be other criminative circumstances;
- accordingly, as the first and third of these conditions were not satisfied, the Sheriff-substitute was not entitled to convict merely because he disbelieved the defence evidence; and the conviction quashed .

** The three part test set out in Fox must be met if there is to be a presumption of fact drawn, resulting in the tactical burden being placed on the accused.