Decision-makers, burdens and the master trial flow

The forum determines the decision-maker. In a magistrates’ court, a bench of lay magistrates decides both law and fact, assisted on law and procedure by the justices’ legal adviserGlossary termJustices’ legal adviser. The adviser supplies necessary legal advice, whether requested or not, and can help clarify issues and formulate reasons. The adviser is not an additional magistrate and does not decide or announce the verdict or sentence. A District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) is a legally qualified judge who sits without a jury and decides law, facts and verdict. The adviser’s functions are governed by CrimPR 2.12 and 24.14.

In an ordinary Crown Court jury trial, the judge decides law, procedure and admissibility: whether the tribunal is legally permitted to receive or use particular evidence. The jury decides the facts, the weight of admitted evidence and guilt on each count. The judge’s ruling that evidence is admissible does not tell the jury that it is true. Conversely, a jury’s assessment of credibility cannot override a ruling excluding evidence. The prosecution presents its case; the defence may test it, make applications and introduce admissible evidence. These roles underpin CrimPR Part 25 and R v Wang (2005)Key caseR v Wang[2005] UKHL 9, [2005] UKHL 9.

A plea is not a verdict. A not-guilty plea puts guilt in issue and requires a trial unless the proceedings end by another lawful route. A guilty plea is an admission of guilt to the charge. A verdict is the trial tribunal’s formal decision. A conviction follows guilt being established; sentence is the court’s subsequent disposal of the offence. Do not move a disputed sentencing fact into the jury’s decision about an offence which has already been admitted.

The legal burdenGlossary termLegal burden is the obligation to prove a particular issue. The standard of proof describes how convincingly it must be proved. Ordinarily, the prosecution bears the legal burden of proving each element of the offence and the defendant’s guilt to the criminal standard: the tribunal must be sure. It is not enough that guilt seems more likely than innocence. Equally, “sure” is not a mathematical percentage or a demand to eliminate every fanciful possibility. Apply the standard to the ingredients of guilt, not mechanically to every minor detail in the evidence. The starting authority is Woolmington v DPP (1935)Key caseWoolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions[1935] AC 462, [1935] AC 462.

The evidential burdenGlossary termEvidential burden is different. It requires sufficient evidence to make an issue fit for consideration. That evidence may come from prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses or other admissible material: the defendant need not necessarily testify to raise it. Once an ordinary defence such as self-defence is properly raised, the prosecution ordinarily must disprove it to the criminal standard. Identify the particular defence before applying that general rule; some rules impose an exceptional legal burden instead.

A reverse legal burden is an exception, not a reaction to suspicion. Insanity is the conventional common-law exception. A statute may create another: Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, s 101 addresses a defendant relying in summary proceedings on an exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification. Its application requires interpretation of the particular offence and provision; it is not a rule that every matter labelled a “defence” must be proved by the defendant. Read statutory burdens consistently with the presumption of innocence. Where a defendant truly bears a legal burden, the ordinary standard is the balance of probabilities—more likely than not. Do not infer that burden merely because a fact is particularly within the defendant’s knowledge. Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43, [1] distinguishes statutory legal burdens from merely evidential ones and identifies the civil standard for the former.

The diagram is a sequence of decisions, not a promise that every case uses every stage. Evidence may be admitted by an agreed route; the defendant may call none; a count may end early. A no-case ruling and the final verdict answer different questions. Repair confusion about the burden here before moving to the no-case application in section 4.