BoxRec

JDC wrote: Hell, its not even ambiguous. A defense, clearly, has to be disproved.

Defendant: 'Erm, I needed the carving knife because I'm going on Masterchef.'
Judge: 'Can you prove this?'
Defendent: 'Er...'

What would happen here?

Has anyone had to disprove the defence?

No, the defendant has to prove his defence.

Judge: 'Can you prove this?'

OR

''We will adjourn and have the police contact Masterchef to confirm your story.''

Regardless, this should have been brought up before the case got to court so the police could gain the evidence. If the defendant had his own evidence to support, it would already be part of his defence.

I will now take heed of what MM said. We could run with this forever and get nowhere.

JDC wrote:Judge: 'Can you prove this?'

OR

''We will adjourn and have the police contact Masterchef to confirm your story.''

Regardless, this should have been brought up before the case got to court so the police could gain the evidence. If the defendant had his own evidence to support, it would already be part of his defence.

I will now take heed of what MM said. We could run with this forever and get nowhere.

Erm, I'm not sure the judge would adjourn a case so the police could try and help a defendant out by gathering evidence on his behalf.

The police don't have to gain the evidence. That's the whole point. If the defendant doesn't have the evidence then it's a sh1t defence and he's had it.

And just because MM says he's bored, don't let that worry you. You discuss whatever you like fella

Right, I'm adjourning for a biscuit

I just find it hard to believe that your scenario would ever play out. Thats what the police interviews are for. If new evidence just turns up at court, there is very often an adjounment.

& its not on his behalf. Its to ''rebuff'' the defense.

The more we post, the more we aren't getting anywhere

Right, this is how it works.

1) Does the defendant accept that the object in question (ie a knife, axe, machete) was found in his possession outside of his home or another private place / place of work?

If yes, then:

2) To be acquitted at trial, the defendant must demonstrate that he had the object with a lawful excuse ie the defendant is a lumberjack and was on his way to Sherwood Forest and that is why he had the axe in his hand. This 'defence' must be demonstrated to the Civil law standard of proof which is that the tribunal must accept his explanation proven on the 'balance of probablities' - in ordinary language, that the defendant's excuse is more likely than not.

THEREFORE, once possession of a prohibited object is accepted, the burden does indeed shift to the defendant to demonstrate lawful excuse, albeit on the lower standard of proof, not 'beyond reasonable doubt' which as everyone knows is the criminal burden of proof.

I hope that's clear. Rather than checking the CPS guidance, check out the law itself or even wiki crime, which is quite good (though not as good as Archbold which i note you have quoted above)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention ... e_Act_1953

There is a defence if the defendant had "lawful authority or a reasonable excuse" for carrying the instrument.

My point has always been that once an excuse has been provided it has to be disproved and the onus falls back on the CPS.

For a conviction under the third category, the prosecution must show evidence that the defendant was intending to use it as an offensive weapon

Doesn't this just mean you can't ''no comment'' your way through:

The onus to provide a reasonable excuse is on the defendant, which is unusual since English criminal law has a principle that defendants are "innocent until proven guilty".

(already covered by an excuse being submitted)

I think Mitchell needs to move far away so he can have a fresh start. Being in the same neighbourhood makes old habits hard to break, no matter how good his intentions are. He seems like a terrific lad and I really hope he can put this nonsense behind him permanently.

he's clearly thick as pig shit and on the road to nowhere

I don't understand all this legal debate. He's already been sentenced to 100 hours and a 3 month curfew. He admitted possession with no excuse for owning it, saying it wasn't his and he didn't know how it got into his car.

Typical of lawyers to carry on arguing about something that was cleared up weeks ago!

And all this talk of him missing out on the Rios fight. Does anyone really believe that would have happened? Mitchell will fight the winner of Burns - Katsidis and if he wins that he'll fight the winner of Rios - Murray, on the proviso that the winner is Murray. If Warren allows Mitchell to travel to the States to fight someone as dangerous as Rios, then I'm a dutchman.


* Note - I am not a dutchman