You have
to have evidence to prove your case. If you are the Crown trying to find a
'baddie' guilty, you have to prove your case against him or her beyond a
reasonable doubt. If you go to civil court, however, perhaps for a broken
contract or for negligence maybe, you have to prove your case on a balance of
probabilities. This means that it is more probable than not that you are right.
One of the legal cases that establishes this is a shipping case. The crew of
the Popi M were happily steaming across the Mediterranean when, bam, a big hole
opened up in the hull of the ship which promptly sank to the bottom of the sea
taking all the evidence with it. How could this have happened? The insurers
declared that it was wear and tear on the ship - in other words, the old tub
had just sunk and it wasn't up to them, therefore, to pay out on the insurance
. The owners of the ship, however, contended that the ship had been struck by
an unidentified, moving, submerged submarine that was never detected, never
seen and which never surfaced. Well, let's face it, it could happen to anyone!
What was the Judge to decide? He plumped for the less implausible of the 2 accounts. Yes, he thought that plain old wear and tear was virtually impossible whereas an invisible, undetected, badly-driven submarine was much more believable.
This case was particularly unusual in that, when it got to the highest court in the land, the House of Lords, the judgment included a quotation from a fictional character. Lord Brandon said "[the Judge] fell into error in applying the approach propounded by Sherlock Holmes in that well known legal text "The Sign of Four", in which he reminded Dr Watson: "How often have I said to you that, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" (Case citation: Rhesa Shipping Co v Edmunds [1985] 1 WLR 948)
The outcome of the case was that the House of Lords said that if the Judge found each side's evidence equally unconvincing, then the claimant had clearly failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities ie he had not demonstrated that it was more probable than not.
And so, the Case of the Invisible Submarine indubitably failed to convince the venerable Law Lords of England and Wales. It's all just elementary my dear Watson.
Tina Morgan www.john-kennedy.co.uk
What was the Judge to decide? He plumped for the less implausible of the 2 accounts. Yes, he thought that plain old wear and tear was virtually impossible whereas an invisible, undetected, badly-driven submarine was much more believable.
This case was particularly unusual in that, when it got to the highest court in the land, the House of Lords, the judgment included a quotation from a fictional character. Lord Brandon said "[the Judge] fell into error in applying the approach propounded by Sherlock Holmes in that well known legal text "The Sign of Four", in which he reminded Dr Watson: "How often have I said to you that, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" (Case citation: Rhesa Shipping Co v Edmunds [1985] 1 WLR 948)
The outcome of the case was that the House of Lords said that if the Judge found each side's evidence equally unconvincing, then the claimant had clearly failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities ie he had not demonstrated that it was more probable than not.
And so, the Case of the Invisible Submarine indubitably failed to convince the venerable Law Lords of England and Wales. It's all just elementary my dear Watson.
Tina Morgan www.john-kennedy.co.uk
Legal-easy
No comments:
Post a Comment