The Principal Rules of Evidence in Criminal and Civil Trials and Their Essay

The Principal Rules of Evidence in Criminal and Civil Trials and Their Legal Basis - Essay Example The development of the rules can trace its development back to the 16th century when the earliest juries could not even be said to be neutral triers of fact based upon their immediate knowledge of the dispute before the court. The law of evidence recognises two principal burdens that are the legal and evidential burden. The legal burden will put the responsibility on the party to prove a fact in issue. Whether a party has discharged the legal burden is something the tribunal of fact will decide and is also known as the persuasive burden and the burden of proof. The evidential burden is the obligation on a party to adduce sufficient evidence to raise a fact in issue and this is something that the judge will decide. A party bearing legal burden can also sometimes be bearing the evidential burden. The standard of proof is the degree of persuasiveness which is required of the evidence as adduced by a party in order to discharge a burden borne by them. The presumption of innocence in crim inal law denotes that, the prosecution will have to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. The general rule is that the prosecution which brings proceedings against a defendant will bear the legal and evidential burden. However, where the defence bears the legal burden in relation to a fact in issue in a criminal trial the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. (R v Carr-Briant 1943 KB 607).However, where the prosecution or the defence bears the legal burden on an issue the evidential burden may be described as the obligation to adduce such evidence as would be sufficient to justify a possibility in a finding by the jury in their favour. According to the case of Batty v AG for Northern Ireland 1963 AC 386 HL where the defendant bears the evidential burden alone he must adduce such evidence as would if believed and left uncontradicted induce reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury.