R v Podola
1960 · 1 QB 325
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Guenther Podola was charged with the capital murder of Detective Sergeant Raymond Purdy. At his trial he said he had a hysterical loss of memory and could not remember the events, and that he was unfit to plead. The jury found that he was fit. He was .
- Issue
- Who must prove unfitness to plead, and is loss of memory of the crime itself unfitness?
- Held
- The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal. The burden of proving unfitness is on the defence, on the . Amnesia covering the events of the crime is not unfitness if the accused can understand the trial, follow the evidence and instruct his lawyers.
- Principle
- Unfitness raised by the defence is a on the balance of probabilities. It is a condition of being tried, not a gap in the accused's memory of the day.
- Why it matters
- If the prosecution raises unfitness, R v Robertson for proof . The report of Robertson is the test of fitness, set out on its own card.
Words and Latin in this note
- Balance of probabilities
- The standard of proof in civil cases, and the standard when an accused bears a legal burden: the court asks whether something is more likely than not to have happened. Open the 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.
- 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.