R v Johnson
1961
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- R v Johnson (1961) is the alibi case. There are many cases of this name. This is the alibi case, not any other Johnson.
- Issue
- Does an accused who relies on an alibi have to prove he was elsewhere?
- Held
- No. The rule is an . He must put the alibi in issue. The prosecution must then disprove it .
- Principle
- An alibi is a denial that he was there. It is not a statutory exception and it is not insanity.
- Why it matters
- A false alibi is a different question. Turnbull says it is not automatically support for a weak identification.
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.
Also on Lanbuk
- R v Johnson in Lanbuk on Criminal Law
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.