Exam2026Proposed solution included

LAW 338 LAW OF EVIDENCE II Exam 2026

Second semester examination in Law of Evidence II (LAW 338), University of Buea Faculty of Laws and Political Science, Department of English Law, June 2026, Instructors Dr Wabi W. Wakai and Dr Akame Remi. Candidates answer Question One (compulsory, 35 marks) plus one other. Question One asks candidates to critically assess whether the burden and standard of proof never shift, requiring a discussion of the legal/persuasive burden (generally fixed on the prosecution per Woolmington v DPP, with recognized exceptions such as insanity, diminished responsibility and statutory reverse-onus provisions) versus the evidential burden (which does shift during trial). Question Two is a case-law essay on the two propositions in Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales governing the admissibility of similar fact evidence, discussed against Lord Hailsham's 'heat not light' dictum in DPP v Boardman. Question Three examines the principle of examination of witnesses (examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination) under criminal proceedings. Full model answers are provided for all three questions.

Open in Shoracy

Opens this paper in the app on your phone.

University of Buea

Faculty of Law and Political Science - FLPS

English Law - LAW

LAW3382026

LAW OF EVIDENCE II

Exam · Second Semester · Level 300

From this paper

The Burden and Standard of Proof never Shift. How true is this assertion?
“The first rule in Makin is designed to exclude a particular kind of inference being drawn which might upset the presumption of innocence by introducing more heat than light.” Per Lord Hailsham, L.C. of St Marylebourne in DPP v. Boardman. Discuss this statement in the light of the two propositions expounded by Lord Herschell in Makin v. Attorney General for New South Wales (1894) A.C. 57.

Open in the app to read the full paper and its proposed solution.

View solution Open in Shoracy