C. The Evidential Burden and the Burden of Proof Charter s 11(d) Presumption of innocence – Constitutional rights Avoids wrongful convictions Protects rights of freedom and liberty to accused System should find those who are guilty guilty, and those who are not not Courts have final say any legislation that offends the presumption of innocence can be – made invalid by the Courts The bears the burden of proof of the guilt of the accused Legal burden proves each element of offence BARD Lifchus 1997 – Evidentiary burden must have evidence on each element of offence that a – reasonable jury might prove BARD Preliminary inquiry set to determine if evidence exists on each element No evidence motion by defense if Crown did not prove evidence of each element if successful accused is acquitted Then evidentiary burden shifts to accused Defense can then raise defences to offences has evidentiary burden – Crown can disprove defences BARD Evidentiary burden on the accused 2 kinds: – Reverse onus provisions place both an initial evidentiary burden and a legal – burden to prove it on a balance of probabilities Evidentiary burden on the accused to displace the presumption by pointing to evidence to the contrary” that could raise a reasonable doubt about its “some correctness Downey R v Lifchus (1997)(SCC) BURDEN OF PROOF, JURY INSTRUCTION Facts Lifchus, a stockbroker, was charged with one count each of fraud and theft both over – $1,000 for allegedly defrauding his employer of a large sum of money by misrepresenting the value of a bond. Who won? Lifchus Procedural history Convicted of fraud and acquitted of theft by a jury. He appealed, arguing that – the judge erred in instructing the jury on the meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt”. The “proof Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Crown appealed to the SCC. Should a trial judge explain doubt” to the jury? How? – “reasonable Holding The trial judge erred by not defining doubt” and by telling the jury to – “reasonable evaluate the term as ordinary, everyday words. Ratio BARD should not be explained as: – An ordinary expression with no special legal meaning The standard of proof applied to important decisions in juror’s own lives A moral certainty A or doubt “substantial” “haunting” Being the accused is guilty “sure” BARD should be explained as:
C. The Evidential Burden and the Burden of Proof Charter s 11(d) Presumption of innocence – Constitutional rights Avoids wrongful convictions Protects rights of freedom and liberty to accused System should find those who are guilty guilty, and those who are not not Courts have final say – any legislation that offends the presumption of innocence can be made invalid by the Courts The bears the burden of proof of the guilt of the accused Legal burden – proves each element of offence BARD Lifchus 1997 Evidentiary burden – must have evidence on each element of offence that a reasonable jury might prove BARD Preliminary inquiry set to determine if evidence exists on each element No evidence motion by defense if Crown did not prove evidence of each element if successful accused is acquitted Then evidentiary burden shifts to accused Defense can then raise defences to offences – has evidentiary burden Crown can disprove defences BARD Evidentiary burden on the accused – 2 kinds: Reverse onus provisions – place both an initial evidentiary burden and a legal burden to prove it on a balance of probabilities Evidentiary burden on the accused to displace the presumption by pointing to “some evidence to the contrary” that could raise a reasonable doubt about its correctness Downey R v Lifchus (1997)(SCC) BURDEN OF PROOF, JURY INSTRUCTION Facts – Lifchus, a stockbroker, was charged with one count each of fraud and theft both over $1,000 for allegedly defrauding his employer of a large sum of money by misrepresenting the value of a bond. Who won? Lifchus Procedural history – Convicted of fraud and acquitted of theft by a jury. He appealed, arguing that the judge erred in instructing the jury on the meaning of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Crown appealed to the SCC. – Should a trial judge explain “reasonable doubt” to the jury? How? Holding – The trial judge erred by not defining “reasonable doubt” and by telling the jury to evaluate the term as ordinary, everyday words. Ratio – BARD should not be explained as: An ordinary expression with no special legal meaning The standard of proof applied to important decisions in juror’s own lives A moral certainty A “substantial” or “haunting” doubt Being “sure” the accused is guilty BARD should be explained as:
Benedet_59_Fall_2016_Tracy_Simpson.docx