TNAG-0604-FCO40-752-Capital-punishment-in-Dependent-Territories-1977 — Page 165

-122-

Crown to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a

reasonable doubt so that you can feel sure.

If you

entertain doubt and you don't feel sure as to the

voluntariness or involuntariness of the act, the reason-

ableness of the instrument used, as to the mental capacity,

if you

his abnormality of mind, Members of the Jury,

entertain a reasonable doubt you will have to give the

benefit of that doubt to the accused person.

It is not a burden that

Members of the Jury at request of Counsel, they would

like me to say something more. I am to tell you about

insanity and the burden of proof. Where the Defence

raises the defence of insanity, the burden is upon the

defence to show that that person did not have the mental

capacity. It is a burden that they must discharge on

a balance of probabilities.

they have to prove to you for you to feel sure. If the

Defence raises this issue of insanity and they told you

that having regard to all the facts, this person is

insane, they have to show that at the time of committing

the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect

of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the

nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did

know it, that he did not know that it was wrong in

law; but they have to do this on a balance of probabilities.

The burden is not the burden that the Crown has. The

Crown's burden is to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to prove

so that you can feel sure. On the issue once again of

diminished responsibility Members of the Jury, I raise

this point because Counsel has asked me too. This

diminished responsibility is not really a concept that is

within our statute books, but the Defence has raised it

10

15

20

25

30

Page 165Page 166