R v Lobell
1957 · 1 QB 547
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Lobell stabbed a man in the course of a fight and was charged with wounding with intent. He said he had acted in self-defence. The judge directed the jury that the burden of proving self-defence was on him.
- Issue
- Does an accused who raises self-defence have to prove it?
- Held
- No. The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the . Once there is evidence of self-defence fit to be left, it is for the prosecution to disprove it .
- Principle
- Self-defence is an , not a . It is not insanity, and it is not a statutory exception.
- Why it matters
- Read it with Woolmington. A direction that the accused must satisfy the jury of self-defence is a misdirection.
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.