1

IUIU KAMPALA COMPUS

FACILIATY OF LAW
YEAR 1
CRIMINAL LAW
COURSE WORK

QUESTION
1.With relevant authority discuss what is meant by burden of proof
and standard of proof and to whom does the burden fall in criminal
law?
b) when does the burden of proof shift to the other party?

GROUP C MEMBERS.
NAME REG.NUMBERS
SSEKEBA ABDULSHAKUL 224-053012-28998

CHAMUTAI KALIFANI
SENTAMU SUDAIS 224-053012-28825
ABURANMAN
OWINO ALONI 224-053012-29020
NAKAMYUKA SHADIA 224-053012-29151
SHAKIRAH
SENGENDO PAUL 224-053012-28972
NSOOBE FUTURE 224-053012-29081
SSEKEBA ABDUL SHAHUL 224-053012-28998
KIIRYA ENOCH SAMSOM 224-050312-28761
 2

1.With relevant authority discuss what is meant by burden of proof

and standard of proof and to whom does the burden fall in criminal
law?
BURDEN OF PROOF.
It refers to when a person proves a fact before court by providing
evidence.
Under article 28(3(a)) of the constitution of the republic of Uganda, an
accused person has no duty to prove his innocence because its always
the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person.
The term burden of proof connotes the duty to establish fair
preponderance of the evidence, the truth off then operating facts
upon which then issue at a hand is made to turn by substantive law.
This simply means that a party who alleges has the duty to produce
sufficient evidence in order for a judge to call upon the other to
answer. This is provided under section 101 of the evidence act cap 8
In Uganda’s criminal law system, it is rooted in the above article of
the constitution that a very person charged with the criminal offence
shall be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty or until they
prove guilt
In Woolmington VS DPP 1935. Woolmington wife left his home and
went to his mother, Woolmington to his mother in law where he shot
 3

and killed his wife, he was arrested and charged with murder, in his
defense he claimed that he didn’t indent to kill her and in a process of
trying to win her back he tried to scare her by threating to kill himself
if she didn’t come back. When he tried to show the gun he intended to
use it on himself the gun went off shooting her on the heart, the trial
judge concluded that Woolmington was responsible for the dearth of
his wife. He noted that the anus was on him to prove that the shooting
was accidental. He was convicted and sentenced to death. He
appealed to the house of lord that held that the prosecution ,must
prove the prisoners guilt if there is a reasonable doubt created, the
prisoners is entitled to an acquittal.
According to section 105 of the evidence act provides that
when a person is accused of any offence the burden of proving
the existence of certain circumstances and the burden of proving
any fact within that person lies on that person who alleges.
There are two different types of burden of proof and they include
 Legal burden of proof.
 Evidential burden of proof.

LEGAL BURDEN OF PROOF.

The legal burden of proof refers to the kind burden of proof,
which rests the prosecution throughout the trial. It is also known
as persuasive burden; this is the duty to convince the court of
the truth of a particular proposition or fact. The prosecution
must prove all the essential elements of a crime and this
principle is strongly established in the same case of
Woolimington vs DPP where the house of lord stated that “No
matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle
 4

that the prosecution must prove the guilt of a prisoner is

part of the common law of England and no attempt to
whittle it down can be entertained”

EVIDENTIAL BURDEN OF PROOF:

This refers to the obligation to present enough evidence to rise
an issue for court consideration. Although the prosecution has
the legal burden of disproving the defense used by the accused
person, the defense has the evidential burden of first rising the
issue as provided for under section 103 of the Evidence Act
that states that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies
on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence,
unless it is provided by any law that the prove of that fact shall
lie on any particular person.
The general rule is laid down under Article 28(3) (a) of the
constitution of the republic of Uganda enshrines the
preposition of innocence, reinforcing that the burden of proof
rests on the prosecution to establish the accused guilty. This is
the constitution guaranty, further supported by Article 44(c)
which gives a right to a fair hearing and the presumption of
innocence is non derogable, even during the state of emergency.
It’s reechoed under Section 101 of the Evidence Act that, the
general rule is that whoever desires any court to give judgment
as to any legal right or liability depends on the existence of facts
which he/ she asserts must prove that those facts exist.
Therefore the legal burden in criminal case typically remains on
the prosecution
 5

In Mancini vs DPP 1942, The government held that even

though the prosecution bars the legal burden to negate the issue
of provocation on a charge of murder, the issue does not have to
be put to the jury unless the defense has discharged the
evidential burden of abusing sufficient in relation to the issue of
provocation.

STANDARD OF PROOF:
This refers to the level of proof that a party in criminal matters
ought to discharge the secure a conviction. In criminal law
proceedings, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
This is the highest standard of proof in the legal system,
reflecting the gravity of a criminal conviction. It requires that
the evidence to be presented by the prosecution, be so
convincing that no reasonable person would question the guilt of
the accused.
In Woolmington vs DPP of 1935, the prove beyond reasonable
doubt generally means that court must subject to the entire
evidence to critically observe as to be satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt that all the important elements placed on the
prosecution by the substantive law are proved. Also in the case
of Miller VS Minster of pension of 1947, Lord Denning stated
that “prove beyond reasonable doubt does not mean prove
beyond shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the
community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the
course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to
leave only a remote possibility in his favor………the case proved
beyond reasonable doubt but nothing short of that will suffice”
 6

In Uganda, courts have consistently applied this standard for

example in the case of Sekitoleko v Uganda of 1967 the
appellant was charged with robbery contrary to section 272 of
the penal code act, his defense was alibi and at course of
judgment the learned Trial Magistrate said the “burden of
proving alibi lies on the appellant”. On appeal it was held that
the burden of proving the guilt of the prisoner beyond
reasonable doubt never shifts whatsoever the defense is on alibi
or something else and also in the case of Uganda vs Dr Aggrey
Kiyinji Criminal case No.30 of 2006, he was accused of
murder of his wife Robbina Heliner who was a lawyer, the
prosecution alleges that the accused had irreconcilable
difference and dispute over the business and personal lives. The
evidence was presented of past threat where it was alleged that
he appointed a gun on her. The accused denied the charges
maintaining his innocence and his defense argued that the
evidence was circumstantial and insufficient to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. It was held that the accused were
acquitted of murder charges since the court found that the
evidence presented by the prosecution didn’t meant the
elements of standard of proof.
In conclusion, the Burden of proof falls or lies on the side of the
prosecution whereby it’s the duty of the prosecution to prove the
guiltiness of the accused person in court as its further
emphasized in same of the cases explained above for example
Sekitoleko v Uganda of 1967, Uganda vs Dr Aggrey Kiyinji
Criminal case No.30 of 2006.
 7

PART B
WHEN DOES THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS TO THE
OTHER PARTY
Although the burden of proof generally lies on the prosecution, there
are some exceptional circumstances when the burden of proof shifts
to the accused and the rationale thereof; in the case of Uganda vs
Mazinga criminal case No.0094 of 2017 it was started that the
burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of
the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the burden never shifts. Some
exceptional/instances where the burden may shift may include;
Statutory Exceptions: These are either express or implied statutory
exceptions and its provided under Article 28(4)(a) of the constitution
states that Nothing done under the authority of any law shall be held
to be inconsistent with clause 3(a) to the extent that the law in
question imposes upon any person charged with a criminal offence,
the burden of proving particular facts.
Express statutory exceptions: here the accused has the burden to
prove according to the particular defense raised by him/her. For
example, the offence of persons found: with the intent to commit a
felony the burden of proof is placed on the accused as it provided
under section 280 (1) (b) of the Penal code Act cap 128 “Where
any person found in possession of any housebreaking instruments
without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him/her who commits
an offence”.
Also under section 281(2) of the Penal code Act cap 128 provides “In
a prosecution for an offence under this section, proof that the accused
was so found and so armed shall be sufficient evidence that the
accused had an intention to commit an offence relating to property or
 8

an offence against the person unless the accused gives an explanation

of his or her conduct which satisfies the court that he or she had no
such intention”.
In the case of R VS Hunt (1987) ac 3552 court explained the issue of
reversed burdens, holding that where a statute place the burden on
the accused to prove an exception, it does not violate the principle of
presumption of innocence long s the burden is proportionate and
justified.
Diminished responsibility, its provide under section 177(2) of the
Penal code Act and its on the charge of murder “on the charge of
murder, it shall be for the defense to prove that the person charged
was suffering from an abnormality of mind as is mentioned in
subsection (1)”.
In the case of Sebakijje John vs Uganda criminal appeal No.6 of
2000, The supreme Court held that diminished Responsibility is a
creature of the statute, which statute expressing places the burden of
proving it on defense.

IMPLIED STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS.

Here the defendants relies for his defense on any exception or
excuse whether or not it companies the description of the offence or
matter of complaint in the enactment creating the offense and the
burden lies or shifts to the accused.
In the case of R VS Edward (1975), the defendant was convicted of
selling intoxicated liquor without a license, he appealed and it was
held that legal burden of proof that the accused was a holder rested
on defense and not the prosecution.
INSANITY.
 9

The presumption of insanity is provided for under Section 11 of the

Penal Code Act “A person is not criminally responsible for an act or
omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he or
she is through any disease affecting his or mind incapable of
understanding what he or is doing or of knowing that he or she ought
not to do the act or make the omission, and it acts as the general rule.
Expectional to the general rule: “A person may be criminally
responsible for an act or omission, although his or her mind is
affected by diseases, if that disease does not infact produce upon his
or her mind one or other of the effects mentioned in this section in
reference to that act.
When a person raises a defense of insanity, she or he has the burden
to prove it, it was in M’Naghton case 1873 that everyone is
presumed to be sane until the contrary is proved to the certificated of
the jury. The rationale is under Section 10 of the Penal Code Act
that everyone is presumed to be sane until the contrary is proven.

INTOXICATION
If a person raises a defence of intoxication the burden shifted from the
prosecution to the accused, however under Section 12(1) provides
that “Intoxication shall not constitute a defence to any criminal
charge”.
However, there is an exceptional to the general rule under section
12(2) and provides as follows;
“Intoxication shall be a defense to any criminal charge if by reason of
the intoxication the person charged, at the time of the act or omission
complained of, did not know that the act or omission was wrong or did
not know what he or she was doing and
 10

a) the stat of intoxication was caused without his or her consent by

the malicious or negligent act of another person.
b) the person charged was by reason of intoxication insane,
temporarily or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission.
So here the accused proves on the balance of probability.
Case: in the case of Mantara vs R 1955,it was argued that if the
accused seek to raise a defence of insanity by reason of intoxication
the burden of establishing that defence rest upon him in that he must
at least demonstrate the probability of what he seeks to prove, but if
the plea is really that the accused was by reason of intoxication
incapable of forming the specific intention required to constitute the
offence charged. its a misdirection of forming the specific intention
required to constitute the offence charged.
Further more in the case of Cheminigwa vs R 1956, it was held that
if someone setup a defence of insanity by reason of intoxication the
burden lies upon him.
In conclusion, the burden of proof in criminal cases rest on the
prosecution and standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt but
there are certain circumstances where the burden shifts to the
accused and standard of proof in such cases lies on balance of
probabilities.
11