The burden of proof is a party’s responsibility to prove certain claims they have made in the court of law. Notably, the burden of proof consists of two different but related aspects, including the burden of production and persuasion. Unlike in civil cases where an individual only has the burden of proving their allegations by a mere preponderance of the evidence, in criminal cases, the prosecution team is usually tasked with proving their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.[1] It is also essential to note that while the burden of proof in criminal cases primarily lies on the prosecution if the accused alleges some other fact, not necessarily within the scope of the issue alleged earlier by the prosecution, they must prove it. In other words, the burden of proof of a particular fact lies on the person alleging it. For instance, if an accused alleges that he was at some different place and not the scene of a crime when it happened, they must prove that this particular fact of alibi is on a balance of probabilities. Courts in Singapore rely on the common law, which holds that the accused only needs to raise evidence of an alibi, and the prosecution will be tasked with disapproving the alibi. Like the common law, the Evidence Act operates in the case of an alibi to place an evidential burden on the accused, confining them to produce some evidence. Below is an analysis of cases relating to the burden of proof on a particular facts.
Case I: Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286, [1975] 3WLR
Facts
The defendant and claimant were involved in a car accident that occurred only because of the defendant’s negligence. However, when the accident occurred, the claimant was not wearing a seatbelt. Notably, no rules and regulations existed during this time regarding wearing seat belts. Furthermore, he feared that wearing a seatbelt would tap him in the car in case of an accident. As a result of not wearing a seatbelt, the claimant suffered head and chest injuries following the crash of the defendant’s car.[2]
Issue
The issue raised in the case is was there contributory negligence on the claimant’s part? (Here, the defendant had to prove that the plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt during the accident)
Held
It was held that negligence significantly depends on a breach of duty while contributory negligence does not. In other words, negligence is an individual’s carelessness in breach of duty to the safety of others, while contributory negligence is their carelessness in ensuring their safety. In this connection, the plaintiff could be partially liable for the accident solely caused by the defendant’s negligence.[3] This is so because the main question was not on the cause of the accident but rather what was the cause of the damage.
Here, it is essential to note that the defendant had the burden to prove that the plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt when the crash happened.
Case II: Everett v Hogg, Robinson and Gardner Mountain (1973)
In this case, the claimant sued the defendant’s brokers for providing inaccurate information to reinsurers that provided them (reinsurers) ground to repudiate the reinsurance contract. In response, the brokers alleged that since the claimant had failed to disclose material facts, the reinsurers would have been entitled to avoid the contact, and as a result, the claimant had suffered no loss.[4] Here, it is essential to note that had failed to disclose material facts to set aside the contract, then the defendant had to prove that the reinsurers would have set aside the contract on that ground. However, in this case, the claimant had to prove the particular fact that reinsurers would have set aside the contract.[5]
Conclusions and Suggestions
According[6] to how evidence is handled in Singapore courts and procedures of handing burden of proof, especially in criminal cases, tends to be outcome determinative. This is so because decisions are not made based on a respondent failing to provide sufficient evidence rather than a court’s speculation of how the evidence might have been. In other words, the procedures of handing burden and standards of proof are not clear. Regulations should be passed to create a procedure that governs handling the burden of proof in Singapore.
Bibliography
Books and articles
Allen, Ronald J., and Alex Stein. “Evidence, probability, and burden of proof.” Ariz. L. Rev. 55 (2013): 557.
Prakken, Henry, and Giovanni Sartor. “A logical analysis of burdens of proof.” In Legal evidence and proof, pp. 237-268. Routledge, 2016.
Cases
Everett v Hogg, Robinson and Gardner
Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286, [1975] 3WLR
[1] Prakken, Henry, and Giovanni Sartor. “A logical analysis of burdens of proof.” In Legal evidence and proof, pp. 237-268. Routledge, 2016.
[2] Froom v Butcher
[3] Froom v Butcher
[4] Everett v Hogg, Robinson and Gardner
[5] Everett v Hogg, Robinson and Gardner
[6] Allen, Ronald J., and Alex Stein. “Evidence, probability, and burden of proof.” Ariz. L. Rev. 55 (2013): 557.
write