When you are charged with an offence by the police, they are
required to be able to prove that charge "beyond reasonable
doubt".
Under the common law tradition, it is not the responsibility of
the accused person to prove his or her innocence; in other words,
"
the onus of proof" never rests with the defence.
Rather, the prosecution is required to prove all elements (or
ingredients) of the alleged offence to a standard of proof known as
beyond any reasonable doubt.
The defendant, on the other hand, is presumed to be innocent
until and unless the prosecution is able to discharge its onus of
proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
So, what does all this mean?
