The accused testified in this trial. Accordingly, counsel are agreed that I am obliged to consider the principles originally set out in R v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 742, in assessing the credibility of the accused in relation to the onus of proof, which in this case remains on the Crown at all times. The W.(D.) principles have been expressed by courts in various ways since originally pronounced. There is no magic wording or formula in stating the principles. The way they are expressed in Canadian Criminal Jury Instructions, 4th Ed., 2017, at p. 4.04 - 3 is as follows: 1) If I believe the evidence of the accused, I must find him not guilty. 2) If I do not believe the evidence of the accused, but his evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt [on the issue of consent to the sexual intercourse], I must find him not guilty. 3) If I do not know whom to believe, then I have a reasonable doubt and must find the accused not guilty. 4) Even if I am not left with a reasonable doubt by the evidence of the accused and the defence witnesses, I must still ask myself whether, on the whole of the evidence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. ANALYSIS 1) The evidence of the accused
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.