The duty is squarely on the shoulder of the Respondent to prove all the ingredients of the offence to secure conviction. This is because, there is the presumption of innocence in favour of the Defendant as he has no obligation in law to prove his innocence.

This burden does not shift if the Respondent must secure conviction.

It is that in criminal cases, the burden is entirely on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Defendant.

Whether the Defendant is not liable to be discharged and acquitted following the discharge of the co-accused with which he was charged when the evidence relied upon by the trial court was same and similar.īURDEN OF PROOF – WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIAL SHIFTS.

Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in convicting the Defendant for the offence of stealing and obtaining by false pretence.

Whether the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove its case against the Defendant shift.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal contending that the burden of proof in criminal matter is on the prosecution that he has no duty to prove his innocence. He was sentenced to 7 and 5 years for counts 2, 3 &4 and Counts 5 & 6 respectively, which counts were to run concurrently. The trial court found the Appellant not guilty of the offence of conspiracy but guilty of the offences of stealing and obtaining by false pretence. The Appellant and one Michael Nnodu (who was described to be at large)was charged before the trial court on six counts for conspiracy, obtaining by false pretence and stealing. Legalpedia Electronic Citation: LER CA/L/782C/2018Īppeal, Criminal Law And Procedure, Law Of Evidence, Practice And Procedure, Words And Phrases

Proof beyond shadow of doubt