Originally Posted by
gr4techie
It's actually the prosecution must prove guilty beyond all doubt.
Even if there's 0.01% doubt then the accused must be acquitted.
All of the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the defence is innocent by default and it's perfectly acceptable for them to remain silent, their silence can't be interpreted as guilt.
A Judge once said to us that our [criminal] law is happy for criminals to slip through the net rather than send one innocent man to prison.
Gr4
Historically the test was ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ not ‘all doubt’
Also a jury may be invited to draw ‘proper inferences’ from the accused’s silence both in the Police interview and also at his Trial (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act SS 34&35) and, unsurprisingly, those inferences are invariably adverse.