TNAG-2327-FCO40-3371-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-implementation-and-conferences-1991 — Page 34

nevertheless reasonably have been an acquittal. As we understand it he was not able to do So, nor have we not (sic) been ' able to think of such a set of circumstances ourselves. It is possible that they may exist, but for practical purposes it appears to us that, once the Crown has established the primary facts beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has failed on the balance of probabilities to overcome the presumption, a conviction must normally follow" (the emphasis is mine).

So in that case it was recognised by the Court of Appeal that a

presumption of evidence was "for practical purposes" equal to a presumption of guilt because the onus is thrown onto the accused

to prove his innocence by rebutting the presumption on

balance of probabilities.

must normally follow".

the

If he fails so to do, "a conviction

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

The presumption of innocence is not in anywise a novel

concept to our legal system. At common law it has been always

the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused

beyond reasonable doubt. This is the celebrated "golden thread"

which

Sankey

L.C.

referred to

in

the case

of

V.

THE

DIRECTOR

OF

PUBLIC

PROSECUTIONS (1935)

Viscount

WOOLMINGTON

A.C.462 H. L. where the learned judge said (at page 481):

This

"Juries are always told that, if conviction there is to be, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. statement cannot mean that in order to be acquitted the prisoner must "satisfy" the

the web of jury....Throughout

English

Criminal Law one golden thread is always to

it that

is the

the prove

be

seen, prosecution guilt...".

to

duty

of the prisoner's

However, that is not the end because the sentence continues,

8

}