Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| Published date | 01 October 1958 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835802200407 |
| Date | 01 October 1958 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Judicial Committee of the
Privy
Council
BURDEN OF
PROOF:
FACTS ESPECIALLY
WITHIN
KNOWLEDGE
OF ACCUSED
Ng v. The Queen
"WHEN
any fact is especially within the knowledge of
any person,
the
burden of proving
that
fact is
upon
him".
Legislation to this effect is to be found in various parts
of
the
Commonwealth and to some extent it reflects a common
law principle.
This
provision is to be found in
the
Indian
Evidence Ordinance, the Ceylon Evidence Ordinance and in
s.
107
of
the
Singapore Evidence which was considered by
the
Judicial Committee
(Lord
Reid,
Lord
Tucker and
Rt,
Hon.
L.
M.
D. de Silva) in Ng v. The Queen(1958, 2
W.L.R.
599)·
The
appellant was charged with
and
convicted of attempt-
ing to cheat a man and thereby attempting dishonestly to
obtain money from him by representing to him
that
she was
able to induce the magistrate before whom
the
man was to
be charged with acriminal offence to show favour to him.
The
trial judge held that whether or not the appellant could
induce
the
magistrate to show favour to the accused man was
a fact which was especially within the knowledge of the
appellant,
and
that
under
s.
107
of the Evidence Ordinance
the onus was on her to prove
that
she could induce the
magistrate to show favour.
It
was held, however, reversing
the
decision of the High Court of Singapore
and
quashing
the conviction, that by reason of s.
107
no burden was placed
on the appellant to prove
that
there had been no deceit.
The
burden was on the prosecution to prove affirmatively
that
there had been.
It
should have been made to appear suffici-
ently on established facts
that
the
appellant
had
no reason to
believe
that
she could have influenced
the
magistrate, and
3°4
To continue reading
Request your trial