YOU'RE ASKING THE wrong question.
It’s not a question of whether they believe you or not.
Let me explain.
The criminal justice system does not require you to prove your innocence.
It requires the State to prove your guilt.
You don’t have to prove anything.
You can sit quietly in court without ever opening your mouth, waiting to see if the State prove their case against you.
But not every case is this straightforward. Sometimes you do have to give evidence, but these cases are rare.
Do you know why so few people give evidence in their defence in higher courts across the country? Because -how to put this- they’re not terribly bright or have personalities that would alienate even Mother Teresa.
Or both.
Put them in front of a jury and you can practically see the lifeblood of their defence drain away onto the floor of the court.
The State have to prove that you have broken the law in some way beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is on them to do this. If they do, then the case is proven against you.
But if they don’t, its not.
It’s not just proving one aspect of a case. The State have the burden of proving every aspect of the case.
"Do you know why so few people give evidence
in their defence in higher courts across the country?
Because -how to put this- they’re not terribly bright or have personalities that would alienate even Mother Teresa.
Or both"
SO, IN A DRINK DRIVING case for example the State have to prove that you were driving a mechanically propelled vehicle (the legal term for a car or van etc), that you drove it in a public place, the time that you drove it and that you were over the limit at the time the specimen was taken.
These are what is known as ‘constituent elements’ of the offence i.e. things that must be proven by the State.
You’re arrested and charged with drink driving. You provide a specimen that was over the limit, but your lawyer advises you to plead not guilty.
Lots of people do this every day in court. In part they can’t accept it, in part they refuse to accept it. This isnt a personal disagreement with the State; it’s because if you plead guilty you will definitely go off the road.
Guaranteed.
So, they plead not guilty.
The charge that you face states that within 3 hours of driving you gave a specimen that was over the limit. But if the State cannot prove what time you drove at, the case will very likely collapse.
It might collapse because the State cannot prove what time you drove at.
It might collapse without you ever having to do or say a word.
It might even collapse without your lawyer ever having to do anything.
The State carry the burden of proving the case against you to the end.
This has nothing to do with whether the judge believes you or not.
By pleading not guilty you have exercised your right as a citizen living in a democracy to require the State to prove their case against you.
That’s because our system (our brothers & sisters in the UK left it behind when they bailed out in 1922) demands that if the State are going to bring charges against you, they need to prove their case.
You do not have to prove your innocence.
So, by pleading not guilty you’re effectively “putting it up to the State” to prove it.
And that’s your right.
SO, IT'S NOT a case about whether the judge ‘believes’ you or not.
Most don’t care one way or the other. They see their job as independent of the people in front of them.
That’s their business.
Their business is to make sure that every aspect of a case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt before they can decide to convict.
If they have a reasonable doubt, they must acquit.
They don’t favour one side over the other. ‘Belief’ in one side or the other doesn’t come into it.
The law is the only thing that matters.
As they say in the movies, “it’s not personal its strictly business”
Comentarios