R v Walters
1969 · 2 AC 26; Jamaica
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Walters was of murder in Jamaica. The judge had directed the jury on proof . The complaint was that the direction, taken with other passages, did not leave the jury with a clear standard.
- Issue
- Is a conviction unsafe because one sentence of the summing-up on the standard of proof is imperfect?
- Held
- The Privy Council looked at the summing-up as a whole. A jury is properly directed if, at the end of it, they understand that they must be sure of guilt. A single loose phrase does not unsettle a direction that has that effect.
- Principle
- The effect of the summing-up, not a ritual formula, is what an appellate court examines.
- Why it matters
- It is the authority for reading the direction as a whole. Ferguson is cited as a model of how to do it in the first place.
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.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.