![]() Prosecution must prove all the ingredients of the Offence of Murder in order to sustain a conviction thereof. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility of his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it is doubt but nothing short of that will suffice”. The law would prevail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. It needs not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. ER 372 at 373 wherein Lord Denning stated as follows The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt as discussed in the case of Miller versus Minister of Pensions (1947) 2. (See: Insrail Epuku s/o Achietu versus R I 166 at page 167). It is our principle of the law that an accused person should be convicted on the strength of the case as proved by prosecution but not on weakness of his defence. It is a requirement by the law that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because the accused has no duty to prove, his innocence ( Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995). The prosecution was represented by State Attorney Kwesiga Michael, while M/s Ahabwe James represented the accused on state brief. ![]() The prosecution produced 4 witnesses in a bid to prove its case and the accused did not produce any witnesses save for himself. The accused denied committing the offence. It is alleged that the accused on the 25 th day of January 2016 at Kamata Village in Kyenjojo District murdered Kanyunyuzi Scola, Monday Israel, and Kabarokole Eunice. The accused was indicted with the offence of murder contrary to Sections 188 and 189 as Count I, Count II and Count III. ![]() MONDAY WILSON.ACCUSEDīEFORE: HIS LORDSHIP HON. A related idea is William Blackstone's formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT FORT PORTAL The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, then the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The term "reasonable doubt" is most commonly used. But this term extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. Beyond "the shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with beyond reasonable doubt. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. This means that the version of events being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. Generally, the prosecutor has the burden of proof and is required to prove their case to this standard. Evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |