R v Briske

The case of R v Briske involved the appellant appealing against his conviction for the offence of rape. The victim in this case could not identify the appellant as her attacker, but DNA evidence found on the victim linked the appellant to the crime scene. The appellant provided an explanation for the presence of his DNA that was consistent with his innocence. The trial judge directed the jury on the effect of the appellant's explanation, leading to a dispute over whether the judge had reversed the burden of proof in his summing up to the jury. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's direction on the burden of proof was incorrect.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge had inadvertently reversed the onus of proof in his summing up to the jury. The appellant argued that although the trial judge had correctly summarised the onus of proof on numerous occasions, there were parts of the summing up that had an impact that outweighed the earlier correct directions. The appellant submitted that the only contingencies allowed for by the trial judge in the paragraphs in question were acceptance or rejection of the evidence of the accused as to whether the car park incident occurred, and not whether there was a reasonable possibility that it did.

The court found that the trial judge had unwittingly reversed the onus of proof, despite the many instances throughout his summing up where he correctly summarised the onus of proof. The impact of the parts of the summing up mentioned by the appellant outweighed the earlier correct directions given by the trial judge. The court held that the trial judge's direction on burden of proof was incorrect, and thus allowed the appeal on ground 1, setting aside the conviction and ordering a re-trial. The appeal was dismissed on grounds 2 and 3.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal on ground 1, setting aside the conviction and ordering a re-trial. The appeal was dismissed on grounds 2 and 3.