The Problem of Increasing Litigation Costs Case Study

The Problem of Increasing Litigation Costs - Case Study Example The case of Weissensteiner was important in that it raised the issue of circumstantial evidence pointing to the accused’s guilt, however, the Court held that the failure of the accused to give evidence did not itself construe an implication of guilt. The Court stated clearly that in an accusatorial trial, the failure of an accused to give evidence â€Å"cannot fill any gaps in the prosecution case† (Weissensteiner @50) and it cannot be used as a factor in determining whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore the failure of a witness to give evidence was not to be associated with inferences of guilt.             Section 20(2) of the Evidence Act states clearly that the judge or other parties may comment on the failure of the accused to provide an explanation for evidence that exists against him. Therefore, the position taken by the judges in the RPS case was a valid one. Firstly, in their judgment, the silence of the accused was not excused in the manner of Weissensteiner. The prosecution, in this case, failed to call a witness that it should have and Justices questioned: â€Å"whether in the circumstances, the jury should entertain a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused†(RPS@633). Secondly, in this case, the Court applied a similar reasoning as it did in the case of Azzopardi v The Queen, where it stated that the position the Court adopted in Weissensteiner would be justified only if â€Å"there is a basis for concluding that there additional facts which would explain or contradict the inference which the prosecution seeks to have the jury draw.†   Thirdly,   Justice McHugh also commented on the history of the right to silence and adopted the position that the right to silence allowed to the accused was no more than an â€Å"invention of lawyers† to protect their clients from incriminating themselves. (Azzopardi @101). The position taken in the majority opinion of Judges in the RPS case was that the Jury could reasonably draw an adverse inference if the accused failed to give evidence since his silence would amount to a tacit admission of guilt.