Law of Evidence · Exam Skeletons

The lists to reproduce.

The labelled sets the examiner asks you to state — pulled out as clean numbered lists so you produce them, not just recognise them.

Each topic gives you the rule, then the exact list to write (the conditions / requirements / limbs), a mnemonic to keep them in order, and the leading cases. Learn the shape, then hang your understanding on it.

Grounded in Opoku-Agyemang, the book behind the app. Read a topic here to fix the structure, then use the chapter pages for the fuller explanation.

1 Circumstantial Evidence NB · standout
The rule
Circumstantial evidence is any fact from the existence of which the court may infer the existence of a fact in issue — not evidence of the fact to be proved, but of other facts from which the disputed fact is inferred. Its nature is a rope of several cords, not a chain: one strand may be too weak, but stranded together they carry the weight (Pollock CB, R v Exall).
The list to reproduce — conditions for a conviction on circumstantial evidence (5)
  1. It must point to one irresistible conclusion — the guilt of the accused.State v Anani Fiadzo
  2. The inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.Anani Fiadzo
  3. They must be incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis than guilt.Anani Fiadzo
  4. The evidence must exclude every other reasonable possibility — including that someone else did it.State v Brobbey & Nipa
  5. Suspicion, however strong, is not proof — "a multitude of suspicions put together cannot constitute proof".State v Ali Kassena; Brobbey & Nipa
I-I-I-E-S  ·  Irresistible conclusion · Incompatible with innocence · Incapable of other explanation · Excludes every hypothesis · Suspicion isn't proof.
Two finishing marks: no special jury direction is needed in a purely circumstantial case beyond the standard beyond-reasonable-doubt direction (McGreevy v DPP); and there is no distinction in principle between direct and circumstantial evidence — neither is inferior.
Key cases
  • R v ExallCircumstantial evidence is a rope of several cords, not a chain — the governing image.
  • State v Anani FiadzoThe inference of guilt must follow irresistibly; inculpatory facts incompatible with innocence and incapable of any other reasonable explanation.
  • State v Brobbey & NipaMust exclude the probability that someone else did it; a multitude of suspicions is not proof.
  • State v Ali Kassena"A multitude of suspicions put together cannot constitute proof."
  • Gligah & Atiso v The RepublicDotse JSC — small threads put together make a strong rope; circumstantial evidence proving rape on oath-against-oath facts.
  • McGreevy v DPPNo special direction required in a wholly circumstantial case beyond the standard burden/standard direction.
2 Burden & Standard of Proof heavy
The rule
Burden of proof is the obligation resting on a party to prove a fact. It carries two senses — a persuasive (legal) burden and an evidential burden — and each proceeding has its own standard to which that burden must be discharged.
The list to reproduce — the two burdens (2)
  1. Persuasive burden (also legal / ultimate / fixed burden) — the obligation to actually prove or disprove a fact in issue. It flows from the substantive law and is fixed; it never shifts. In a criminal trial it sits throughout on the prosecution.Woolmington v DPP
  2. Evidential burden — the lighter burden of producing enough evidence on an issue to make it a live question for the court. This one can shift — e.g. to an accused only where an explanation of matters peculiarly within his knowledge is called for.COP v Isaac Antwi
The list to reproduce — the two standards (2)
  1. Criminal → proof beyond reasonable doubt, borne by the prosecution. Woolmington's "golden thread … it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt." The accused need only raise a reasonable doubt and must be acquitted.Woolmington v DPP; COP v Antwi
  2. Civil → preponderance / balance of probabilities. And a party does not discharge it by mere assertion on oath — he must lead evidence.Majolagbe v Larbi; Fenuku v John Teye
PE-CC  ·  Persuasive (fixed) · Evidential (shifts)  //  Criminal = beyond reasonable doubt · Civil = balance of probabilities.
The trap that scores: where a crime is alleged in a civil case, the standard stays civil (balance of probabilities) — the graver the allegation, the weightier the evidence needed, but the standard does not rise to criminal. That is the English position in Hornal v Neuberger; know that Ghana has been read as departing from it, so argue both sides.
Key cases
  • Woolmington v DPPThe "golden thread" — the prosecution bears the burden throughout; standard is beyond reasonable doubt.
  • COP v Isaac AntwiBurden fixed on the prosecution; evidential burden shifts to the accused only for matters peculiarly within his knowledge; he need only raise a reasonable doubt.
  • Majolagbe v LarbiA party does not discharge the burden by mere assertion on oath — he must lead evidence.
  • Hornal v Neuberger Products LtdCrime alleged in a civil case is proved on the balance of probabilities, weighted by the seriousness of the allegation.
More topics landing here: Relevance, Admissibility & Improperly-Obtained Evidence · Hearsay · Presumptions, Estoppel & Res Judicata · Witnesses (Competence & Compellability) · Privilege. Documentary and Opinion evidence sit in their own chapters.