Duress-Burden of proof

golum

In case of duress being raised as a defence where does the burden of proof lie?
Secondly, what are the defences for which the burden lies with the defendant?

Quaver

If the accused raises the defence of duress the Prosecution must disprove it to a standard beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

As far as I know, insanity is the only defence in which the burden of proof shifts to the accused.

UrbanFox

Might there not also be other defence claims that have to be proven by the accused to the standard of ther balance of probabilities ?

Cannot think of any offhand but I thought that there were some others that went beyond insanity issues ?

Quaver

In a criminal trial, the accused can raise any defence, the main ones being lawful use of force, provocation, intoxication, automatism, duress and necessity, and it is for the Prosecution to disprove them beyond reasonable doubt. The only exception I can find to this is insanity, where the onus shifts on to the accused to prove insanity on the balance of probabilities.

johnfás

You would also have to prove Unconstitutionality if you raised it as a defence and also Diminished Responsibility, which is covered by the Criminal Law Insanity Act.

nmcg

It was already mentioned that the burden of proof was shifted when the insanity defence is put forward.

The burden also shifts when a person is found to be in possession of drugs. When it is established that the drugs were in the accused's possession, the onus is shifted to the accused to prove that he/she did not know that the substance in their possession was drugs.

It was argued in O'Leary that possessing incriminating posters and a statement from a Garda Commissioner unfairly shifted the burden of proof on to the accused; however, the court decided that it was only evidence and the burden was only an evidential burden and could be disproved by cross-examination etc..