Quote:
Originally Posted by fredr123
To the poster who suggested that the law should require the accused to refute charges against him, I simply cannot agree. Our justice system, and that of a great many other states, is founded on several fundamental principles of justice and fairness. Two of those principles that go hand in hand are that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and that the accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself. To require the accused to refute Crown evidence at a criminal trial would run afoul of both of those principles.
If upon the close of the Crown's case, it has presented solid evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused then the accused runs the risk of being convicted on that evidence if he does not testify. That's his choice to make. So long as the evidence is solid and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been proved, then I have no problem with a conviction in that case. If the evidence is equivocal or maybe-kinda-sorta makes it look as though the accused is guilty, then drawing and adverse inference from the accused's failure to testify should not be permitted. The Crown needs to make out its case without help from the accused.
|
So would you say that at the end of what could be described as a very borderline case (one witness only) when the judge is directing the jury:
It would be fair for him to:
1. Mention to the jury that they should note that the defendant had heard the allegations from the sole witness and had every opportunity to take the stand to refute them and had refused to do so.
2. Comment on his perception of the witness behaviour on the stand (thorough, meticulous) thus swaying their perception of him.
3. Tell the jury that along with an accurate description of the defendant that wasn't challenged by the defence he had also described the defendants accent. Given that the defendant didn't speak and the defence didn't challenge this they were to assume that this information also was accurate?
This is a UK case where a jury is allowed to draw adverse inferences from a suspect's refusal to provide an explanation for prosecution evidence.