Quote:
|
Originally Posted by traveller
But i always thought that a defendant was innocent until proven guilty!
It also begs the question, why do TFL seem to be pursuing prosecutions in an overwhelming number of cases now, rather than simply issuing penalty fares, as they have for the best part of the twenty five years that these laws have been in existance?
|
Let's try to explain this simply if I can.
The structure of an offense is as follows
1. The fact of the offence being alleged have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
2. Any legal defence has to proved by the defence on the balance of probabilities.
That structure applies for all offences.
So if someone is occused of murder the prosecution has to prove:
1. That the occused killed the victim.
2. That occused intended to either kill the victim or do GBH to them.
This would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
If the defence then with to claim a defence (e.g. self-defence) They would have to prove that defence on the balance of probabilities.
Nobody, including the prosecution can be required to prove a negative.
Paula