Quantum of proof when case for the prosecution depends substantially or wholly on circumstantial evidence: irresistible conclusion test or reasonable beyond a doubt test?

There seems to be apparent judicial conflict as to the quantum of evidence required when the case for the prosecution is based wholly or substantially on circumstantial evidence. The traditional preponderant view - is that to succeed, the prosecution must show that the circumstantial evidence must b...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Shair Mohamad, Mohd Akram
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	Routledge 2011
Subjects:	K Law (General)
Online Access:	http://irep.iium.edu.my/8503/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/8503/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/8503/1/2011_-_Quantum_of_proof_when_case_for_the_prosecution_depends_substantially__or_wholly_on_circumstantial_evidence-_irresistible_conclusion_test_or_reasonable_beyond_a_doubt_test.pdf

id	iium-8503
recordtype	eprints
spelling	iium-85032013-06-21T01:12:22Z http://irep.iium.edu.my/8503/ Quantum of proof when case for the prosecution depends substantially or wholly on circumstantial evidence: irresistible conclusion test or reasonable beyond a doubt test? Shair Mohamad, Mohd Akram K Law (General) There seems to be apparent judicial conflict as to the quantum of evidence required when the case for the prosecution is based wholly or substantially on circumstantial evidence. The traditional preponderant view - is that to succeed, the prosecution must show that the circumstantial evidence must be irresistibly consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocent - the so called irresistible conclusion test. The other view is that the usual test applies in a criminal case i.e. that the prosecution must prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt suffices. This apparent difference of judicial views is seen in Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and India, all countries whose legal systems, rooted in history, is based on the common law adversarial system. The paper addresses this conflict, with a view to suggesting how such a conflict can be resolved. Some insights from the Islamic law position on circumstantial evidence are also examined with a view to resolving the lingering conflict of opinions among the common law jurisdictions. Routledge 2011-06 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en http://irep.iium.edu.my/8503/1/2011_-_Quantum_of_proof_when_case_for_the_prosecution_depends_substantially__or_wholly_on_circumstantial_evidence-_irresistible_conclusion_test_or_reasonable_beyond_a_doubt_test.pdf Shair Mohamad, Mohd Akram (2011) Quantum of proof when case for the prosecution depends substantially or wholly on circumstantial evidence: irresistible conclusion test or reasonable beyond a doubt test? Journal of Islamic Law Review, 7 (1). pp. 1-35. ISSN 0973-2918 http://www.serialspublications.com/journals1.asp?jid=393
repository_type	Digital Repository
institution_category	Local University
institution	International Islamic University Malaysia
building	IIUM Repository
collection	Online Access
language	English
topic	K Law (General)
spellingShingle	K Law (General) Shair Mohamad, Mohd Akram Quantum of proof when case for the prosecution depends substantially or wholly on circumstantial evidence: irresistible conclusion test or reasonable beyond a doubt test?
description	There seems to be apparent judicial conflict as to the quantum of evidence required when the case for the prosecution is based wholly or substantially on circumstantial evidence. The traditional preponderant view - is that to succeed, the prosecution must show that the circumstantial evidence must be irresistibly consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocent - the so called irresistible conclusion test. The other view is that the usual test applies in a criminal case i.e. that the prosecution must prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt suffices. This apparent difference of judicial views is seen in Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and India, all countries whose legal systems, rooted in history, is based on the common law adversarial system. The paper addresses this conflict, with a view to suggesting how such a conflict can be resolved. Some insights from the Islamic law position on circumstantial evidence are also examined with a view to resolving the lingering conflict of opinions among the common law jurisdictions.
format	Article
author	Shair Mohamad, Mohd Akram
author_facet	Shair Mohamad, Mohd Akram
author_sort	Shair Mohamad, Mohd Akram
title	Quantum of proof when case for the prosecution depends substantially or wholly on circumstantial evidence: irresistible conclusion test or reasonable beyond a doubt test?
title_short	Quantum of proof when case for the prosecution depends substantially or wholly on circumstantial evidence: irresistible conclusion test or reasonable beyond a doubt test?
title_full	Quantum of proof when case for the prosecution depends substantially or wholly on circumstantial evidence: irresistible conclusion test or reasonable beyond a doubt test?
title_fullStr	Quantum of proof when case for the prosecution depends substantially or wholly on circumstantial evidence: irresistible conclusion test or reasonable beyond a doubt test?
title_full_unstemmed	Quantum of proof when case for the prosecution depends substantially or wholly on circumstantial evidence: irresistible conclusion test or reasonable beyond a doubt test?
title_sort	quantum of proof when case for the prosecution depends substantially or wholly on circumstantial evidence: irresistible conclusion test or reasonable beyond a doubt test?
publisher	Routledge
publishDate	2011
url	http://irep.iium.edu.my/8503/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/8503/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/8503/1/2011_-_Quantum_of_proof_when_case_for_the_prosecution_depends_substantially__or_wholly_on_circumstantial_evidence-_irresistible_conclusion_test_or_reasonable_beyond_a_doubt_test.pdf
first_indexed	2023-09-18T20:18:14Z
last_indexed	2023-09-18T20:18:14Z
_version_	1777407931861434368

Quantum of proof when case for the prosecution depends substantially or wholly on circumstantial evidence: irresistible conclusion test or reasonable beyond a doubt test?

Similar Items