Kennedy v HM Advocate
1944 · Scotland
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- This Scots case is the authority for drunkenness as a common-law defence.
- Issue
- What burden does an accused bear when he says drink prevented him forming the intent?
- Held
- Drunkenness raises an only. Once it is raised, the prosecution must disprove it .
- Principle
- Drunkenness is not insanity. It does not put a on the accused.
- Why it matters
- It sits with Gill, Lobell and Bratty.
Words and Latin in this note
- Beyond reasonable doubt
- The high standard of proof in criminal cases: the prosecution must prove guilt so that the tribunal is sure. It is short of certainty, and it is not a mere shadow of a doubt. Open the note.
- Evidential burden
- The duty to point to enough evidence to put an issue before the court. On provocation, self-defence, duress, alibi and similar defences, the accused bears only this burden. The prosecution must then disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt. Open the note.
- Legal burden
- The obligation to prove a fact to the required standard, or lose on that issue. In crime it is on the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, except for insanity and a statutory exception, which the accused proves on the balance of probabilities. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.