'It is impossible to discern from the approach of the judiciary to Essay

It is impossible to discern from the approach of the judiciary to either the question of the incidence of the pack of proof - Essay ExampleCJS is accountable for apprehending the poisonouss, penalising them for their offences, executing the orders of the court like custodial punishment, collecting fines imposed by courts, supervising the community and to rehabilitate them for halt future crimes2. CJS evaluates its operation by employing the following five indicators namely a) bringing crimes to justice b) enhancing the awareness and confidence of the public c) satisfying the victims by sentencing the criminals d) to redress the disproportionality among mingled races and e) recovery of stolen assets or properties3. As per recent research study carried over by academics at Birmingham University reveals that crime place will tend to decline when there are tougher prison sentences and further there is a direct link between levels of policing activity and crime reduction . Hence, th e study strongly suggests that UK government should end from downsizing its police personnel, mainly on the grounds of cost cutting. The above study found that prison imprisonment was especially successful in minimising the quality crime by repeat and serious offenders in UK. It also found that if sentence is increased to 16.4 months from that of 15.4 months, it is likely to minimise the burglaries in the succeeding year by 4800 out of annual aggregate of 962,700. The report finds that there is unambiguous evidence that more effective and sustained policing will definitely minimise the crime rates in UK4. Burden of proof in criminal cases Under side of meat criminal law , the most renowned cannon is that the accused will be treated as innocent until the prosecution proves the guilty of offence of an accused by beyond realistic doubt. Though the English law assumes an accused as an innocent, but it yet requires upon the prosecution to produce adequate evidence so that the court ca n declare the accused as an offender. The famous maxim as held in Hobson5 that one innocent man should not be punished even if ten guilty men could escape from the punishment. Earlier, in Woolmington v DPP, where suspect W claimed that he killed her wife accidentally. In that case, the court was of the view that defendant had the onus of proving any defence it which wanted to forward. However, the same was turned down by the House of Lords, and it held that, the prosecution had the onus of establishing all the components of crime except in some extraordinary cases, and it did not acknowledge any defences forwarded by the accused6. Thus, the golden draw off rule which inflicts the whole legal onus on the prosecution, and the maxim that the Crown must establish its case beyond any satisfactory doubt was held in very old case namely 7White8. Thus, in Woolmington case9, the House of Lord set precedent by pronouncing that the prosecution assumes the whole onus in criminal cases. It is claimed that by placing the whole burden of proof on prosecution, it helps to minimise the wrongful convictions by police. It also denotes the severity of criminal convictions and thereby increases the moral convictions among the police. Thus, under English law, the prosecution is responsible for any of defences put forth by an accused like alibi, provocation, self-defence or duress. In Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police,10 in criminal proceedings, the onus of negativing self-defence lies upon the prosec