Ali s/o Mohamed v. R., Crim. App. 561-D-67; 24/6/67; Hamlyn, J.

Ali s/o Mohamed v. R., Crim. App. 561-D-67; 24/6/67; Hamlyn, J.

Accused was convicted of stealing, on evidence the High Court found wholly sufficient. The magistrate stated, however, that accused had “failed to prove the clothes in question were his,” this being his main defence.

            Held: Since an accused ’s burden, in a criminal case is merely to cast doubt upon the prosecution’s version of the matter, magistrates should avoid expression such as this one. However, because “there was plenty of evidence on which to base a conviction,” the conviction was sustained despite this misdirection.