Autoplay Next video from Max length

R v Mitchell (Northern Ireland) [2016] UKSC 55

199 views · Published 12 December 2016 · 8:14 · Indexed 22 September 2026

Channel: marcuscleaver · 2016 · Education

What happens when the prosecution wants to prove that a defendant has a propensity towards violence during a trial? After a rather vague direction in this Northern Irish case the Supreme Court had to decide how propensity works and the burden of proof required from the prosecution.

Mitchell was convicted of the murder of her former partner and at the trial the prosecution wanted to adduce evidence that she had a propensity towards using knives in a violent and threatening manner. The judge read a statement about these prior incidents and indicated that the jury was free to consider these incidents as they felt appropriate.

Mitchell appealed and successfully got a retrial where she pleaded guilty to manslaughter. In the meantime the prosecution appealed again to the Supreme Court and argued that evidence for propensity required no special consideration by a jury. The respondents took the view that the criminal burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) should be applied.

The court began by noting that incidents that were evidence of propensity should not be considered by a jury in isolation but as a whole. Taking all of the incidents into account the burden of proof to be applied was beyond reasonable doubt.

In the final part of this episode we consider the benefits and drawbacks of this approach before trying to come up with a different formulation that might be considered more preferable.

Music from bensound.com

R v Mitchell (Northern Ireland) [2016] UKSC 55

More from this channel