We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

Assuming the worst

1 5 4
12.07.2018

In terms of the law, the initial burden of proof is on the prosecution, and if, and only if the prosecution discharges such burden, would the accused be required to satisfy the court as to why a judgment should not be passed against the same.

In light of the above, and in regard to Nawaz Sharif’s conviction, the judgment would best be analysed from three varying yet interconnected perspectives.

Firstly, how was the issue of the prosecution’s discharging of its burden tackled in the judgment? Secondly, how did the judge view the prosecution’s evidence vis-à-vis known incomes of the Sharif family? And thirdly, how was the fairness and impartiality of the trial perceivably impacted by its manner and method?

In relation to the first point, the judge has in fact noted in this judgment that the initial burden of proof was on the prosecution itself. The prosecution was required to first establish that the Avenfield properties were in fact owned by the accused, or his dependants. Secondly, they were also to establish the sources of income of accused, and in comparison of the two, to further show that the known sources of income were not sufficient to........

© Daily Times