Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings

Подписаться 5 тыс.

Просмотров 43 тыс.

50% 1

This short capsule explains why the Crown has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, what that term means, and what happens when the accused has a "reverse onus" to prove some aspect of his or her defence.
To learn more about the criminal law and evidence, check out my website: petersankoff.com
To be notified about new videos, Like my Facebook page: / professorsankoff
IF THESE VIDEOS HAVE HELPED YOU, PLEASE SHARE THEM WITH OTHERS. MY GOAL IS TO ASSIST STUDENTS AND LAWYERS LEARN MORE ABOUT THESE TOPICS.
Also, please consider leaving a comment, or letting me know how these have helped on my website.

Опубликовано:

7 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 24

@ClaryJaxon 6 лет назад

The 'proof' part of "burden of proof" has lost it's meaning when proof=evidence and then evidence=testimony. What I'm trying to say is that nothing can ever truly be proven on a complainant's statement alone, yet Crowns win convictions every day with this poor standard our criminal courts have been reduced to.

@Alexe4everme22 2 года назад

Thank you! Those videos are helping me refresh my mind. I am newly a lawyer and I feel it is important to go over all those principles again.

@Salatiso 9 лет назад

Fascinating how much I relate to this even as a South African. Difference is the the presumption of innocence is Constitutionally entrenched. Even though there's some statutes that create a reverse onus on the accussed when tested against the Constitution they fail (seldom justifiable) because " This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid"

@AS-fk3lo 9 лет назад

Hi their Peter. Thank you for this helpful video. I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Would I be correct or incorrect in saying that statues which shifts the burden expressly are not as problematic as implied because they are not confined in the regulations and that they are justified and proportionate and therefore legitimate under art 6?

@rc7164 7 лет назад

Your explanations are amazing! Good job, and thanks for your videos. Very full and explanatory, clear.

@rc7164 7 лет назад

Ok! I will. Where did you go to law school? I'm guessing you're canadian trained

@rc7164 7 лет назад

Nice checked out ur profile!! I went to Uottawa's fauteux as an exchange law student from France, took grad online courses at Osgoode & now doing my LLM in UBC! I saved ur website to my bookmarks. Taking evidence this semester, Ill make sure to check ur videos for each topic to enhance my comprehension of the material (get a different perspective and explanation)! Thanks for doing this !!! Good luck with your teaching profession

@sushisaucemetro 4 года назад

this was very helpful thank youu!

@carlaturner3885 6 лет назад

Presumption of innocence may be constitutional, but it is definitely not adhered too.

@chasingamurderer 3 года назад

Thank you

@ClearWayFamilyLawyers 3 года назад

Thanks for making these videos!

@professorsankoff7683 3 года назад

You are very welcome!

@NiSiochainGanSaoirse 4 года назад

Innocent until proven guilty doesnt exist any more, hence so many plea deals.

@SajjadKhan-eu3nz Год назад

Have a wonderful day

@PottersVideos2 6 лет назад

6:44 Wrong! It need not be a doubt for which one could give reasons, it is simply a doubt which is reasonable.

@courtgeek6357 4 года назад

Watch this 5 minute video if you want to learn the recipe to create a doubt in the jury's mind during a criminal trial: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_RhBkD-yCQE.html