LLB Law Of Evidence coursework Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

LLB right Of Evidence coursework - Essay ExampleOn the other hand, the defendant can easily claim that they did non have knowledge of what was inside the package, but that the package contained other things, something hard for the prosecutor to rebut. The aim of this reputation is to advise Jim who is appealing against his conviction for supply heroin based on explicitial issues arising from the judges summing up. Discussion Ever since the effecting of Human Rights meet 1998, criminal evidence has become the most significant ripening due to various disputes under Article 6 which entails the right to a just trial against the use of a legal weight on the defendant to hold one or more particulars in the issue2. The fact that Jim is seeking a declaration that section 28(3) (b) (i) to be declared contrary to Human Rights Act 1998 as it infringes on his right to a just trial under Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights 1950, he is placing the court with a question on whet her it has the jurisdiction to conceptualise appeal and, if it did, whether section 28(3) (b) (i) the Act was unsuited with his right to a just trial3. ... Therefore, in order to establish the defence under section 28(3) of the Act, Jim has to prove on the equilibrium of probabilities that he did non know that the incase contained heroin4. The real apprehension is not if the defendant should disprove evidence but that the defendant may be convicted though a reasonable doubt subsists. In particular, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 does not have a clear characterization of possession, and in section 37(3) it elaborates that an item which an individual has in his or her possession to intromit anything subject to his or her control, and which is in the guardianship of another person. Therefore, unless the item is in that individual control though still under care of another person, it cannot be categorized to be in the accused in this case Jim possession5. This then leads to what the d irections the jury was given by the trial judge, and it is evident that though it was essential for the quest to establish that Jim knew that the niche was in his control, it was not essential for the prosecution to establish that Jim knew that the item inside the box was a controlled drug. For this reason, then there would be the likelihood of an infringement in terms of presumption of innocence. This became evident in R v Edwards,6 whereby the defence was identified to have so closely associated with the mens rea principle and honorable guilt that it derogated from presupposition to reassignment of legal burden to the defendant. Although subsections (2) with (3) of Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 define specifically of the defendant proving something, then this does not necessarily mean that in order to ascertain a defence then the defendant must(prenominal) essentially offer evidence. Thus, the essential evidence might arise such as from any varied