A Relevant (proof of fact make it more likely that event Absolute Certainty – BARD – BOP (50%) – Suspicion occurred) v Material (relevant with respect to matter Circumstantial evidence at issue) 4. – BARD: Evidentiary Burden A Crown – introduce evidence of each element of crime, prove concurrence of AR and MR - Man in town, visited apartment, likely murderer Accused – prove defence or disprove an element Closer to Absolute Certainty of the offence 5. – Direct (eyewitness) – sources of error: reliability and - Jury cannot be directed to ordinary meaning credibility 6. – BARD Circumstantial (further inference needs to be drawn) – Credibility and Reliability of evid is paramount r and c issues also mistaken inference 7. – - Vetrovec witness with credibility problems enough to defeat BARD Crown Case – evidence for each element of crime 8. C.W.H – No Evidence Motion – D may make after crown cases Each element must be BARD closes but is a low standard of proof (assume no 9. – evidentiary sources of error) Defence Case – may choose not to call evidence if crown - jurors can believe in different prices of evidence is weak, may choose for accused to testify and may come to their conclusion in diff ways Final arguments – facts, law and what verdict should be Judge – finds law Jury – finds facts Does not apply to facts: defences (must prove), sanity (must disprove)… Reverse Onus in cases which are almost impossible Replaces common law but retained some cl defences for crown to prove BARD Need to be justified under s. 1 Crown prove Identity and AR and qualifying Identity clause -> MR assumed 1. - Onus on D to prove no intent (BoP) or BARD reasonable doubt of intent (lowest threshold) Pre-charter cases: - Could not prove that he was assailant BARD 10. - despite strong circumstantial evidence 11. - A Actus Reus Application which does not fail oakes Mens Rea 12. – – Charge as per charge sheet - make D specifically aware so that they can defend themselves. Cannot be too Eliminate pimp relationships vague (could not run another case on same charge) Is a Connection 2. – Only needs to raise a reasonable doubt Low concern that innocent person will be - ‘heroin’ does not include other drugs convicted 13 – –
Relevant (proof of fact make it more likely that event occurred) v Material (relevant with respect to matter at issue) Evidentiary Burden Crown – introduce evidence of each element of crime, prove concurrence of AR and MR Accused – prove defence or disprove an element of the offence Direct (eyewitness) – sources of error: reliability and credibility Circumstantial (further inference needs to be drawn) – r and c issues also mistaken inference Crown Case – evidence for each element of crime No Evidence Motion – D may make after crown cases closes but is a low standard of proof (assume no evidentiary sources of error) Defence Case – may choose not to call evidence if crown is weak, may choose for accused to testify Final arguments – facts, law and what verdict should be Judge – finds law Jury – finds facts Replaces common law but retained some cl defences Identity 1. - BARD - Could not prove that he was assailant BARD despite strong circumstantial evidence Actus Reus Mens Rea Charge as per charge sheet - make D specifically aware so that they can defend themselves. Cannot be too vague (could not run another case on same charge) 2. – - ‘heroin’ does not include other drugs Absolute Certainty – BARD – BOP (50%) – Suspicion Circumstantial evidence 4. – BARD: - Man in town, visited apartment, likely murderer Closer to Absolute Certainty 5. – - Jury cannot be directed to ordinary meaning 6. – BARD Credibility and Reliability of evid is paramount 7. – - Vetrovec witness with credibility problems enough to defeat BARD 8. C.W.H – Each element must be BARD 9. – - jurors can believe in different prices of evidence and may come to their conclusion in diff ways Does not apply to facts: defences (must prove), sanity (must disprove)… Reverse Onus in cases which are almost impossible for crown to prove BARD Need to be justified under s. 1 Crown prove Identity and AR and qualifying clause -> MR assumed Onus on D to prove no intent (BoP) or reasonable doubt of intent (lowest threshold) Pre-charter cases: 10. - 11. - Application which does not fail oakes 12. – – Eliminate pimp relationships Is a Connection Only needs to raise a reasonable doubt Low concern that innocent person will be convicted 13 – – A A A