SHERIFF

SHERIFF'S CHARGE TO THE JURY - a possible outline

LADIES and GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, it is now my duty to give you directions as to the law in this case.

You and I have DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS.

It’s MY FUNCTION to deal with questions of law and you must accept and apply my directions on THE LAW.

But YOU are the judges of THE FACTS.

It’s YOUR FUNCTION to assess the evidence. It’s for you to decide: - what evidence you believe and what you disbelieve; what evidence you find reliable and what unreliable. Please consider the evidence with care. It is your recollection and your assessment of the evidence that counts - and not mine.

There are THREE VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES which I wish to draw to your attention at the outset.

1. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. Every person is presumed innocent and he remains innocent unless and until the Crown satisfies you that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is up to the Crown to prove the guilt of the accused. If they fail to do so, then the accused must be acquitted.

2. THE STANDARD OF PROOF - is GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. A reasonable doubt is something that would cause you to hesitate or pause before taking an important decision in the practical conduct of your own life. If there is any doubt about an accused’s guilt and it is a reasonable doubt, not a fanciful or hypothetical one, then you must acquit.

3. The Crown must prove guilt by what is called CORROBORATED EVIDENCE. That means by evidence from more than one source. It is not every detail that requires to be corroborated. It's the essentials of the case, such as the commission of the crime and involvement of the accused. Corroboration need not come from two eyewitnesses - circumstantial evidence can be enough.

Remember that the burden is on the Crown throughout. An ACCUSED is in a completely different position. AN ACCUSED never needs to prove anything at all. An accused never requires giving evidence and evidence in defence never needs to be corroborated. If the accused's guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt you should convict. But if on ALL the evidence there is any reasonable doubt then you must acquit.

The evidence is very fresh in your minds - and I propose to say nothing further about it.

I would like to say a few words about the LAW.

There is no doubt that if Goldilocks intentionally broke Baby Bear’s chair then that would be the crime of malicious mischief.

The real question for you is whether the prosecutor has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Goldilocks broke the chair intentionally.

In assessing the evidence you should consider carefully all of the points made by the prosecution and by the defence. Having done that you should come to a verdict according to the principles which I explained at the outset.

Remember, if you have any reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused then you must acquit.

THERE ARE THREE VEDICTS OPEN TO YOU

1. Guilty or

2. Not Guilty or

3. Not Proven

The last two ("not guilty" and "not proven") are both verdicts of acquittal.

Your verdict can be unanimous or by majority.

Before you can find an accused guilty there must be at least EIGHT of you in favour of guilty verdict.

When you have reached a verdict please tell the Clerk of Court.

Please also appoint a spokesperson to speak for you when you return to give your verdict.

WOULD YOU NOW PLEASE RETIRE AND CONSIDER YOUR VERDICT.

Поиск по сайту: