TNAG-0604-FCO40-752-Capital-punishment-in-Dependent-Territories-1977 — Page 157

-114F-

raised, the Crown has to prove that the act, is a

voluntary act, but for the Crown to prove that, the

Crown can rely upon the normal presumption that everyman is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient

degree of reason, to be responsible to his action until

the contrary is proved. So if the Crown relies upon that presumption that every one is presumed to be normal, to

be sane, until the contrary is proved the Crown is

complete as far as that goes.

The Crown has told you a story of how the whole thing

happened and they say that that supports their contention

that the act was voluntary. The accused has to rebutt

that presumption (that every person is presumed to be

sane) by evidence from which the contrary can be reasonably

inferred, by evidence then that the act was involuntary.

But the Defence has not got to prove it with that same

strictness as the Crown has to prove all the ingredients

in the charge of murder. They haven't got to prove that

beyond reasonable doubt as the Crown does.

prove that on a balance of probabilities.

5

10

15

They have to

They haven't

20

got to convince you for you to feel sure, they just have to present something to you that will satisfy you on ૐ

balance of probabilities. So now, you will have to look

at the facts relating to the missing money because that is the essence of this case to say whether the act was

voluntary or involuntary.

The Defence relies also on the ground of insanity. There again, there is a presumption I just said that every-

man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient

degree of reason to be responsible for his acts until

the contrary is proved to your satisfaction on a balance

42

2.5

30