<h1>Privy Council ruling on burden of proof in Ceylon criminal case emphasizes consistent legal standards</h1> <h3>Attygalle and Ors. Versus The King</h3> Attygalle and Ors. Versus The King - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of burden of proof under Section 106 of Ordinance 14 of 1895 in the Ceylon Code.2. Correct statement of law regarding burden of proof in criminal cases.3. Consideration of misdirection in jury instructions.4. Application of legal principles from previous cases.5. Justification for granting special leave to appeal.Analysis:1. The judgment in question involved the interpretation of the burden of proof under Section 106 of Ordinance 14 of 1895 in the Ceylon Code. The trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the burden of proof in a criminal case was challenged by the appellant's counsel. The judge had explained to the jury that the burden of proving certain facts was on the accused based on his understanding of the aforementioned section. However, the Privy Council held that the direction did not accurately reflect the law, emphasizing that the burden is not on the accused to prove the absence of a crime.2. The Privy Council clarified that in Ceylon, the burden of proof does not lie with the accused to demonstrate the non-commission of a crime. The judges expressed concern that the jury may have been misled by the trial judge's instruction, which could have erroneously suggested that the accused had to prove their innocence. Despite the misdirection in the jury instructions, the Privy Council found that there were other compelling factors pointing towards the guilt of the accused, independent of the erroneous direction.3. The judgment discussed the impact of misdirection in jury instructions on the fairness of the trial. While acknowledging the mistake in the judge's direction, the Privy Council highlighted that not every error of law warrants special leave to appeal. Citing previous authorities, the Council emphasized that a mere misdirection or irregularity is insufficient grounds for granting special leave to appeal unless it significantly affects the fairness of the trial or the administration of justice.4. The Privy Council referred to the case of Lawrence v. The King (1933) A.C. 699 to address the appellant's argument regarding a potential modification of legal principles. The Council clarified that the principles established in previous cases remain unchanged and that the judgment in Lawrence did not deviate from these established principles. The Council underscored the importance of upholding consistent legal standards and ensuring that deviations from established principles do not occur.5. In considering the justification for granting special leave to appeal, the Privy Council concluded that there was no substantial injustice or deprivation of a fair trial in the present case. Despite the erroneous jury instruction, the Council found that the circumstances did not warrant special leave to appeal. The Council emphasized that the refusal of the petition should not be construed as an endorsement of the inaccurate language used in the summing-up, reiterating that the statement of the law was incorrect and should not be approved.