Presentation of the cases for the prosecution and the defence became the responsibility of counsel through their examination and cross-examination of witnesses. That ‘unstructured discussion’ gradually evolved into the adversarial system we have today, where: Judges had an unrestricted power to comment to the jury on the evidence and the merits of the case as they worked together to elicit evidence. The judge enjoyed a supervisory role, leading what was a largely unstructured discussion with jurors, witnesses, the accused and the alleged victim. Before the trial system we have today emerged in Great Britain during the eighteenth century: Jury directions have become more and more frequent as the criminal process has developed over the generations. These remarks from the judge are known as “jury directions”. They will review the evidence and arguments made by both sides, and frame the legal principles on which the jury has to make its decision. the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt (and not possible doubt) through a case study: PellĪt the end of a trial with a jury, after all the evidence has been put before the jury, and after the prosecution and defence have given their closing statements, the judge will sum up the case for the jury. how jury directions about the presumption of innocence relate to the rule of law through a case study from Victoria: Dookheea.Ģ. This article will explore two elements of beyond reasonable doubt:ġ. However, that protection rings less true, or seems less sure, when the content of the phrase is subject to such widely different interpretations and applications. The clearest way we protect the presumption of innocence in our system is through the high standard of proof placed on the prosecution in a criminal trial: that they must prove the case against the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”. The presumption of innocence is an important part of any fair criminal justice system under the rule of law.

Examples of reasonable doubt