ShareJunction - Member Posts

x 0

x 1

It depends.... if evidence against goldman is solid ....goldman may just try to cut a deal to save its lawyer fees and restore confidence in its company.... usually this will drag but as picture gets clearer... it may not be too wise to be draggy.....

We should know soon... first sgx/mas must come out and support market against big bullies...

Go ask any local or other foreign houses like citi or ubs they will never do like goldman do....its totally against client interest....not reasonable....and impossible for anyone to do such a feat within 2 hours to top up 60 over million of cash... you must be crazy goldman.....

Goldman must be punished....

PAP must help SG market recover from such bully...
huat ah PAP....

Rosesyrup ( Date: 29-Nov-2013 11:05) Posted:

Any speculation to share as to when SGX going make announcement? Or perhaps Peter Pan is right that this kind of cases are usually very draggy? Any experience from other counters facing similar problems?

risktaker ( Date: 29-Nov-2013 09:46) Posted:

For now....wait n move on to other counters

x 0

For now....wait n move on to other counters

x 0

Nope... not at all.... just pissed off with goldman sac.... because i lose in other stocks because of the penny crashed.... damn goldman

Peter_Pan ( Date: 27-Nov-2013 20:29) Posted:

bro, are you heavily vested in asia blue lion..?

risktaker ( Date: 27-Nov-2013 19:47) Posted:

Valuation doesnt really matter in stock market.... as long as u believe it worth the value in the future u buy... if dont believe dont buy it....simple as that.... we buy stocks for future valuation....can u 100% guarantee the trio will fall and all assets are fake? Prove it to us if u can...

To be honest the valuation is on very high side.... but that doesnt mean goldman sac is above law ....and use this opportunity to crashed the trio....to benefit itself.... 国有国法 ,家有家法 .

SGX HAS BEEN DOING GOOD JOB ALONG UNTIL THEY ARE PRESSURED BY THE MEDIA AND SIAS. WHEN GOLDMAN SAC FORCE SELL THE TRIO SHARES.... SGX PRESSED THE PANIC BUTTON AS IT TRY TO PROTECT INVESTORS...BUT THE DESIGNATION OF THE 3 STOCKS IS NOT WELL THOUGHT MOVE.

As more information went public....it gets clearer and clearer that goldman sac is totally wrong..... and justice must be served......

Goldman supporter or whoever u r pls do not defend or trying to misled anymore because its silly....because they are suing goldman with evidence.....It really doesnt look good on u..

Good luck....

x 0

Valuation doesnt really matter in stock market.... as long as u believe it worth the value in the future u buy... if dont believe dont buy it....simple as that.... we buy stocks for future valuation....can u 100% guarantee the trio will fall and all assets are fake? Prove it to us if u can...

To be honest the valuation is on very high side.... but that doesnt mean goldman sac is above law ....and use this opportunity to crashed the trio....to benefit itself.... 国有国法 ,家有家法 .

SGX HAS BEEN DOING GOOD JOB ALONG UNTIL THEY ARE PRESSURED BY THE MEDIA AND SIAS. WHEN GOLDMAN SAC FORCE SELL THE TRIO SHARES.... SGX PRESSED THE PANIC BUTTON AS IT TRY TO PROTECT INVESTORS...BUT THE DESIGNATION OF THE 3 STOCKS IS NOT WELL THOUGHT MOVE.

As more information went public....it gets clearer and clearer that goldman sac is totally wrong..... and justice must be served......

Goldman supporter or whoever u r pls do not defend or trying to misled anymore because its silly....because they are suing goldman with evidence.....It really doesnt look good on u..

Good luck....

x 0

Valuation doesnt really matter in stock market.... as long as u believe it worth the value in the future u buy... if dont believe dont buy it....simple as that.... we buy stocks for future valuation....can u 100% guarantee the trio will fall and all assets are fake? Prove it to us if u can...

To be honest the valuation is on very high side.... but that doesnt mean goldman sac is above law ....and use this opportunity to crashed the trio....to benefit itself.... 国有国法 ,家有家法 .

SGX HAS BEEN DOING GOOD JOB ALONG UNTIL THEY ARE PRESSURED BY THE MEDIA AND SIAS. WHEN GOLDMAN SAC FORCE SELL THE TRIO SHARES.... SGX PRESSED THE PANIC BUTTON AS IT TRY TO PROTECT INVESTORS...BUT THE DESIGNATION OF THE 3 STOCKS IS NOT WELL THOUGHT MOVE.

As more information went public....it gets clearer and clearer that goldman sac is totally wrong..... and justice must be served......

Goldman supporter or whoever u r pls do not defend or trying to misled anymore because its silly....because they are suing goldman with evidence.....It really doesnt look good on u..

Good luck....

x 1

x 0

Yes .... according to what i have read... massive shorts are done during july to sept period... it is reasonable to say that this group of people wanted the trio crashed....
Or a group of people want to cover shorts....its day light robbery....

i know a person who used to be millionaire burst into tears when he told me he has lost everything.....

lets be reasonable...and take a look at olam...does olam has any fundamentals based on muddy water reports its sure to failed....but it was trading over 3 dollars back 2 years ago... now 1.50?

Point i am making is who caused the huge amt of losses in the market and destroyed our investors sentiment..... so far we know goldman is acting against client interest..and goldman which directly caused the trio to crash and indirectly caused the market to die....must answer to singapore market....

Like i say who can guarantee that olam assets or the trio assets wont grow in the furture.... also we all know market speculation is part of the game play..... but this round it seems too much.....

shoutnovoice ( Date: 27-Nov-2013 10:48) Posted:

Risktaker,

U mean someone built up huge short positions that were not covered?? Any mention of these were covered before or after the crash? It seems that someone made big big big money by planning a grand scheme to kill investors

risktaker ( Date: 27-Nov-2013 10:37) Posted:

Prior collapse of the trio...from the edge findings .... over 200 millions dollar worth of shorts has been executed in the market...between july to sept period....

So my guess is these people who shorts need shares to cover and u can guess what happen next.....

WE ARE NOT SILLYPOREANS WE ARE SINGAPOREAN AND JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED....SIMPLY COME HERE AND SHIT ON OUR MARKET.... KNN I KNOW PEOPLE THAT LOST EVERYTHING OVERNIGHT......
CANT EVEN CARRY ON THEIR LIVES...

PAP MUST HELP US..

x 0

Prior collapse of the trio...from the edge findings .... over 200 millions dollar worth of shorts has been executed in the market...between july to sept period....

So my guess is these people who shorts need shares to cover and u can guess what happen next.....

WE ARE NOT SILLYPOREANS WE ARE SINGAPOREAN AND JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED....SIMPLY COME HERE AND SHIT ON OUR MARKET.... KNN I KNOW PEOPLE THAT LOST EVERYTHING OVERNIGHT......
CANT EVEN CARRY ON THEIR LIVES...

PAP MUST HELP US...

risktaker ( Date: 27-Nov-2013 10:27) Posted:

Everyone lets wait for MAS/SGX announcement coming soon.... the truth is out.... has all the names who is building up massive shorts or benefit greatly from the collapse of the trio....

The one shall be held liable as he is the one that send sg market into ICU.... its like a terrorist attack on our financial system....

We, the citizens of Singapore,pledge ourselves as one united people,regardless of race, language or religion,to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

dont bully us....goldman .....u need to pay for our market loss....

x 0

Everyone lets wait for MAS/SGX announcement coming soon.... the truth is out.... has all the names who is building up massive shorts or benefit greatly from the collapse of the trio....

The one shall be held liable as he is the one that send sg market into ICU.... its like a terrorist attack on our financial system....

We, the citizens of Singapore,pledge ourselves as one united people,regardless of race, language or religion,to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

dont bully us....goldman .....u need to pay for our market loss....

x 0

Third penny stock case against Goldman
Blumont director says bank breached duty by force-selling his shares

Money | Updated today at 01:39 AM
By Rachel Scully

ANOTHER shareholder caught in the trading debacle over the Blumont Group, LionGold Corp and Asiasons Capital penny stocks is suing global bank Goldman Sachs.

Mr James Hong claims the bank, which had given him a credit facility of more than $64 million, breached its duty of care when it force-sold his shares in the three firms last month.

He is the third person to take legal action against the bank.

Ipco International chief executive Quah Su-Ling and LionGold independent director Ng Su Ling, who is also Ipco's company secretary, have both commenced legal proceedings.

Recent media reports said Ms Quah had loans in excess of $61 million with Goldman Sachs.

Singapore-based Mr Hong, an executive director at Blumont, first bought shares of Asiasons and LionGold in 2007.

Last year, he received some Blumont shares in his capacity as the firm's executive director, according to documents filed with Britain's High Court on Monday.

Mr Hong had also come to know Mr William Chan, chief executive and chairman of Stamford Management, last year.

Mr Chan offered to act as an investment consultant and assist Mr Hong in procuring loan facilities from banks for his investments.

He later told Mr Hong that Goldman Sachs would be willing to extend a loan facility to him against his shares in Asiasons and LionGold.

Mr Chan also introduced Ms Quah to the bank.

Mr Hong opened an account with Goldman Sachs in February this year, pledging his Asiasons shares in exchange for proceeds he could use to buy LionGold stock.

The size of his account with Goldman Sachs was estimated at about $12.4 million then.

In September, the bank agreed to fund the cost of the 1.75 million Blumont shares Mr Hong would take up as part of its rights issue.

However, things took a turn on Oct 2, a day after the Singapore Exchange (SGX) asked Blumont to explain how its market value had jumped more than 12 times to $6.3 billion within nine months.

Mr Hong's court papers show that a Goldman Sachs representative e-mailed him a demand notice at 11.48am on Oct 2, stating that he had to repay the $64 million loan in cash by 1.30pm that same day, less than two hours later.

Mr Hong then received an e-mail at 1.36pm stating that as he had defaulted on his payments, Goldman Sachs would "exercise its rights to appropriate all or any of his assets it held" to pay off his loan.

The next day, Mr Hong told Goldman Sachs that he had obtained an alternative loan facility of $40 million from BHP International Markets in exchange for 27.4 million Asiasons shares.

Despite this proposal to pay off his loan, Goldman continued to sell his stakes in the three counters.

These transactions carried on through Oct 23, even after the SGX had lifted its designation status on the three stocks.

Mr Hong contends that Goldman Sachs had "arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely and irrationally" sold the shares even when their values had fallen by 70 to 90 per cent.

The bank continued to sell the shares even after the SGX announced that it was "apparently engaged in an investigation into the trading and price fluctuations" of the three stocks, alleges Mr Hong.

He is suing for damages, interest and costs

x 0

We decided to quit the sg market for now....Hong Kong and US are much better.... fairer,more liquid,freedom,wont anyhow suka suka designate counters....
good luck guys.... we are out of sing market...

x 0

x 3

Ur too against the trio.... i dont want to know why and ur motive... but the facts are there and it really doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it all out.... this case is mishandled and goldman seems liable at this point.of.time..... end.of story.... lets.all.wait.and see...

wanglausern ( Date: 26-Nov-2013 11:23) Posted:

When Quah S L opened her account with GS in February this year, her credit line grew from $12.4 million to more than $61 million by Oct 1st.

She was being imprudent as she leveraged up on the same collateral when its market value went up multiple times.

She could have sold 20% of her holding, be debt free and still hold substantial part of the assets without encumbrances.

What is there to sue? I give three to one odds that GS will win this case.

x 0

Lianhe zaobao report the story on last saturday.....Straitimes REPORTED today with very neutral view .....

Goldman you can drag but u cant run away....ur at fault.... look at our market 434.4Million shares traded value 257.million.... its a joke.... everyone lose faith in the market now.....
and whose fault.....

x 0

Well.... like i say trading is our bread and butter.... and if ur not in our position how can you feel the pain and losses that people lost because of this penny crash....you wont understand.... imagine u lost everything overnight.... the case i am bringing up is goldman shouldnt start this and let the market naturally handle it.... who can guarantee that the trio will never become another wilmar in 5 years.....
You never know....

once more i am only against the way goldman action....which kill our dear market....

goldman is wrong and unlawful to go against its client interest...

xtraderx ( Date: 25-Nov-2013 21:52) Posted:

The traders who bought the trio at those high and unjustified prices already got " robbed" as soon as they hit the buy button, its a game of musical chairs, tough luck if you were trying to buy high and sell higher but didn't manage to do that.

There aren't that many incredibly high PE shares in the US market, there are a few like tesla (which has already slumped almost 40% recently) and netflix but they are just as susceptible to selloffs, its all a game of musical chairs, all it takes is a trigger to do it. Yes and no one point a gun at to buy... goldman certainly didn't force you to buy... They were acquiring assets with stock that were worth nothing, tough luck for those who believed those stories.

Our market was already doing very badly before this thing happened, look at all the blue chips and mid caps, all not moving, STI is barely higher year-to-date. Only the penny stocks linked to the trio and a handful of others were doing well, the game was going to end badly eventually. I'm also stuck with 2 penny stocks but I'm overall still up for this year, I consider myself lucky to have got out before the music stopped, but I won't blame others even if I didn't manage to escape.

risktaker ( Date: 25-Nov-2013 21:25) Posted:

So it is ok to rob a bank just because u know that there tons of cash and no guards at that particular time..can you say oh well its the bank fault... no right... doesnt mean goldman can pull trigger and resulted a damage which is far greater than any major crashed....it is ethically and seriously wrong for goldman to do it .

There are many shares trading incredible PE in US/china market ....no one point a gun at u to buy....beside they are acquiring many assets.... which is a strategy to grow.... as long you believed their story who cares.... (i didnt really believe or trade much) but at this price i see good buying opportunity... even though i havent start buying....as i am still waiting the outcome of the investigation....MAS/SGX should really give us an answer soon...

...my main case is the damage that our market took was huge..... every bloody market enjoyed big rally except singapore... goldman sac is having christmas party right now.....

its not fair....i want a fairer market but not goldman sac coming in and stir up shit....
now market is dead.....will it recover?maybe will take many months or years...

x 0

x 1

So it is ok to rob a bank just because u know that there tons of cash and no guards at that particular time..can you say oh well its the bank fault... no right... doesnt mean goldman can pull trigger and resulted a damage which is far greater than any major crashed....it is ethically and seriously wrong for goldman to do it .

There are many shares trading incredible PE in US/china market ....no one point a gun at u to buy....beside they are acquiring many assets.... which is a strategy to grow.... as long you believed their story who cares.... (i didnt really believe or trade much) but at this price i see good buying opportunity... even though i havent start buying....as i am still waiting the outcome of the investigation....MAS/SGX should really give us an answer soon...

...my main case is the damage that our market took was huge..... every bloody market enjoyed big rally except singapore... goldman sac is having christmas party right now.....

its not fair....i want a fairer market but not goldman sac coming in and stir up shit....
now market is dead.....will it recover?maybe will take many months or years...

xtraderx ( Date: 25-Nov-2013 20:57) Posted:

I think its pointless to blame goldman or sgx for this, somebody else would have pulled the trigger on this even if goldman didn't get themselves involved.Think about what Blumont was worth before it crashed, its market cap was bigger than many blue chips on the STI yet it had no assets or earnings to support it, it was a bubble ready to be popped, anyone could have done it.

I warned in late Sept about the trio and its connections with stocks like IPCO, examine the relationship between the shareholders, their shareholdings in these companies and cross holdings within these group of companies and its not hard to see what they were up to.

risktaker ( Date: 25-Nov-2013 16:01) Posted:

I know how bank deal structure..... and banks has the right to force sell whatever it has.... but remember being unreasonable expect them to top up within just 2 hours is wrong.... furthermore they found buyers to take over the shares.....and yet they dont care..... all actions from goldman sac only point to one purpose to sell in the public domain in order to bring down the price.... totally against client interest....
This is not acceptable...

Now the market is dead because goldman action of course we blame him..... we need to find the caused for the market dead....
Market was performing well when the 3 trio is doing well.... even though i dont trade but we traders benefit from the sentiment.... from what i see they are really into building up their assets.... not just any pump and dump.....

But because.of goldman the market is dead..... tell me how not to blame goldman..... i cant blame sgx because they are pressure by the medias..... but goldman is the one that pull the trigger.....

Goldman must pay.... i studied law before and there is a strong case against goldman....

x 0

Even apples from the same tree doesnt need to taste the same....there are chance of bad apples..... and in goldman their reputation are terrible around the world...i do know they are very powerful entity but justice must be served....

x 0

Haha wang.... very obvious ur on goldman side.... dont misled and hide the truth....investment banking charge commission at a high price..... goldman reputation is notorious in the market..... go check what they do during the sub prime crisis.... we only want fair statement..... even ur 1/20 that are being handled fairly.... that doesnt mean they are all the same.... u dont represent every client in world.... there are bound to be case mishandled by bankers.... furthermore evidence are very straight forward in this case.....

Goldman must pay....

wanglausern ( Date: 25-Nov-2013 17:07) Posted:

Credit line was granted way before 1st Oct.

I deal with investment banks for more than a decade and I haven't encountered any unfair handling from them.

shoutnovoice ( Date: 25-Nov-2013 16:48) Posted:

Wang,

U obviously dun read. 1 oct GS gave lines to pick up blumont rights, 2 oct immediately made Margin call without any change in circumstances or share pric

x 0

I told my friends to trade with morgan steady and UBS..... close all links with goldman..

Integrity ( Date: 25-Nov-2013 16:43) Posted:

I will think twice to be Goldman client

x 0

Queen counsel will canned goldman sac for us.... but we need MAS/SGX to stop goldman going around bullying us...

x 0

Burden of proof

ShareThis

Save

Many people will be familiar with the fact that in civil and criminal cases there are different standards of proof. They might also be aware that in criminal cases there is a presumption of innocence, so that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution.

So the basic standard of proof / burden of proof matrix looks like this:

Standard of proof

Burden of proof

Criminal cases

Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

On the prosecution

Civil cases

On the balance of probabilities, the defendant was more likely liable than not liable

On the claimant

There are, however, some more subtle aspects to burden of proof issues, and this article discusses a few of them.

The evidential burden of proof

In general terms, the evidential burden of proof might be described as the burden of proving to the court that there is a case for the defendant to answer at trial. For example, where a civil claimant has only thin circumstantial evidence as to the defendant's liability, a court might grant the defendant's application to have the case dismissed prior to trial. In such circumstances, the claimant has failed to meet the evidential burden of proof.

Sometimes, however, the evidential burden of proof can be shifted -- even in criminal cases. For instance, in some types of criminal cases the defendant may have the evidential burden of raising a defence.

Where the defendant has the evidential burden of proof, the legal burden of proving the case "beyond a reasonable doubt" remains with the prosecution. For example, if a defendant charged with grievous bodily harm claims he was acting in self-defence, he has the burden of demonstrating to the court that there is evidence to support his defence. Once the court accepts that he should be allowed to raise the defence, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence.

So although the prosecution does not have to anticipate all possible defences and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each such defence did not exist, it does have to disprove defences that the defendant has raised and that meet the evidential burden of proof.

Shifting the legal burden of proof in criminal cases

For some types of defences to criminal charges, the legal (and not just evidential) burden of proving the defence shifts to the defendant. The traditional example of this is the defence of insanity. In effect, a defendant who wants to be acquitted on the grounds of insanity needs to prove that he is insane. There are other examples of defences where, by statute, the legal burden of proof shifts to the defendant, either because the defendant is required to prove elements of his defence or to disprove an element of the crime with which he has been charged.

In a number of recent cases, the UK courts have held that where certain criminal statutes are interpreted as imposing a legal burden of proof on the defendant (in other words requiring him to prove a defence) rather than an evidential burden (the burden of introducing evidence in support of a defence), that interpretation would not be consistent with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. So in those cases, the courts have required that the statutes in question be read as imposing only the lesser, evidential burden of proof on the defendant.

Presumptions and how they affect the burden of proof

The legal system is full of presumptions, both as to questions of law and questions of fact. Essentially, they are means of allocating the burden of proof on particular issues.

In the context of a civil claim, a presumption might work like this: A sues B for defamation (a civil action for damages). B defends on the ground that the allegedly defamatory statement, which reflects badly on A's reputation, is true. In this case, the law imposes a presumption that A has a good reputation. This means that in proving his defence, the burden is on B to rebut that presumption -- by showing that in fact B's reputation is not so good and that the alleged libel is in fact a true statement.

Presumptions can also come into play in certain circumstances where the true facts might be difficult or even impossible to prove. For instance, where two married people die simultaneously -- and, say, a particular beneficiary's interest in their estates depends on which of them died first -- the law imposes a presumption that the older person died first. That may or may not have actually been the case, but if, for instance, they were killed in a car accident and there is no forensic evidence available to prove who died first, then the presumption will stand.

The burden of proof in civil matters

In civil matters, the general rule is that the burden of proof falls on the party advancing the matter in question. For example, a claimant who asserts that the defendant was negligent will have the burden of proving that, on the balance of probabilities, the defendant had a duty of care to the claimant, that the defendant breached the duty of care and that the breach caused harm to the claimant. If the defendant asserts that the claimant's own negligence had contributed to the harm, then the defendant will have the burden of proving the claimant's contributory negligence.

Since there are frequently counterclaims in civil cases, and apportionment of liability rather than just an all-or-nothing outcome, each side will usually bear the burden of proof on some matters.

As indicated above, presumptions can also affect the burden of proof in civil cases. Sometimes a presumption will give one party the benefit of the doubt -- thus giving the other party the burden of disproving, or rebutting the presumption.

Strict liability and the burden of proof

In some types of cases, the law imposes strict liability on the defending party if the claimant (or prosecution) is able to prove a particular set of facts. This often arises in quasi-criminal cases involving "administrative" offences, such as breaches of statutory duty under health and safety legislation.

Strict liability removes the burden of proving liability -- if, for example, the health and safety authorities can prove that a ladder was not in the condition required under work at height regulations, then the employer who provided the ladder will have strict liability under the applicable regulations. Such matters are often germane to both criminal (or quasi-criminal) and civil proceedings, since a civil claimant might rely on a breach of statutory duty to advance a civil claim.

Getting help with civil or criminal litigation

As the discussion in this article indicates, issues relating to the burden of proof can be complex. A solicitor who regularly handles criminal or civil litigation will be familiar with these issues and will be able to advise you on how they might affect your case. The free solicitor--client referral service Contact Lawprovides a good way for you to find a quality-assured solicitor in your area with the experience you need.

x 0

Burden of proof

ShareThis

Save

Many people will be familiar with the fact that in civil and criminal cases there are different standards of proof. They might also be aware that in criminal cases there is a presumption of innocence, so that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution.

So the basic standard of proof / burden of proof matrix looks like this:

Standard of proof

Burden of proof

Criminal cases

Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

On the prosecution

Civil cases

On the balance of probabilities, the defendant was more likely liable than not liable

On the claimant

There are, however, some more subtle aspects to burden of proof issues, and this article discusses a few of them.

The evidential burden of proof

In general terms, the evidential burden of proof might be described as the burden of proving to the court that there is a case for the defendant to answer at trial. For example, where a civil claimant has only thin circumstantial evidence as to the defendant's liability, a court might grant the defendant's application to have the case dismissed prior to trial. In such circumstances, the claimant has failed to meet the evidential burden of proof.

Sometimes, however, the evidential burden of proof can be shifted -- even in criminal cases. For instance, in some types of criminal cases the defendant may have the evidential burden of raising a defence.

Where the defendant has the evidential burden of proof, the legal burden of proving the case "beyond a reasonable doubt" remains with the prosecution. For example, if a defendant charged with grievous bodily harm claims he was acting in self-defence, he has the burden of demonstrating to the court that there is evidence to support his defence. Once the court accepts that he should be allowed to raise the defence, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence.

So although the prosecution does not have to anticipate all possible defences and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each such defence did not exist, it does have to disprove defences that the defendant has raised and that meet the evidential burden of proof.

Shifting the legal burden of proof in criminal cases

For some types of defences to criminal charges, the legal (and not just evidential) burden of proving the defence shifts to the defendant. The traditional example of this is the defence of insanity. In effect, a defendant who wants to be acquitted on the grounds of insanity needs to prove that he is insane. There are other examples of defences where, by statute, the legal burden of proof shifts to the defendant, either because the defendant is required to prove elements of his defence or to disprove an element of the crime with which he has been charged.

In a number of recent cases, the UK courts have held that where certain criminal statutes are interpreted as imposing a legal burden of proof on the defendant (in other words requiring him to prove a defence) rather than an evidential burden (the burden of introducing evidence in support of a defence), that interpretation would not be consistent with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. So in those cases, the courts have required that the statutes in question be read as imposing only the lesser, evidential burden of proof on the defendant.

Presumptions and how they affect the burden of proof

The legal system is full of presumptions, both as to questions of law and questions of fact. Essentially, they are means of allocating the burden of proof on particular issues.

In the context of a civil claim, a presumption might work like this: A sues B for defamation (a civil action for damages). B defends on the ground that the allegedly defamatory statement, which reflects badly on A's reputation, is true. In this case, the law imposes a presumption that A has a good reputation. This means that in proving his defence, the burden is on B to rebut that presumption -- by showing that in fact B's reputation is not so good and that the alleged libel is in fact a true statement.

Presumptions can also come into play in certain circumstances where the true facts might be difficult or even impossible to prove. For instance, where two married people die simultaneously -- and, say, a particular beneficiary's interest in their estates depends on which of them died first -- the law imposes a presumption that the older person died first. That may or may not have actually been the case, but if, for instance, they were killed in a car accident and there is no forensic evidence available to prove who died first, then the presumption will stand.

The burden of proof in civil matters

In civil matters, the general rule is that the burden of proof falls on the party advancing the matter in question. For example, a claimant who asserts that the defendant was negligent will have the burden of proving that, on the balance of probabilities, the defendant had a duty of care to the claimant, that the defendant breached the duty of care and that the breach caused harm to the claimant. If the defendant asserts that the claimant's own negligence had contributed to the harm, then the defendant will have the burden of proving the claimant's contributory negligence.

Since there are frequently counterclaims in civil cases, and apportionment of liability rather than just an all-or-nothing outcome, each side will usually bear the burden of proof on some matters.

As indicated above, presumptions can also affect the burden of proof in civil cases. Sometimes a presumption will give one party the benefit of the doubt -- thus giving the other party the burden of disproving, or rebutting the presumption.

Strict liability and the burden of proof

In some types of cases, the law imposes strict liability on the defending party if the claimant (or prosecution) is able to prove a particular set of facts. This often arises in quasi-criminal cases involving "administrative" offences, such as breaches of statutory duty under health and safety legislation.

Strict liability removes the burden of proving liability -- if, for example, the health and safety authorities can prove that a ladder was not in the condition required under work at height regulations, then the employer who provided the ladder will have strict liability under the applicable regulations. Such matters are often germane to both criminal (or quasi-criminal) and civil proceedings, since a civil claimant might rely on a breach of statutory duty to advance a civil claim.

Getting help with civil or criminal litigation

As the discussion in this article indicates, issues relating to the burden of proof can be complex. A solicitor who regularly handles criminal or civil litigation will be familiar with these issues and will be able to advise you on how they might affect your case. The free solicitor--client referral service Contact Lawprovides a good way for you to find a quality-assured solicitor in your area with the experience you need.