Pantis v. The Attorney General – sllr 1998 volume 2 page 148

In the case between PANTIS (Plaintiff) and THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Defendant), the court addressed whether improper judicial directions impermissibly shifted the burden of proof onto the accused in a prosecution for criminal breach of trust and evaluated the sufficiency of the evidence supporting conviction. It was held that, although trial judge language suggested the accused must provide a satisfactory explanation for shortages, such misdirection did not infringe the accused’s substantial rights because the prosecution’s case was established beyond reasonable doubt. The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof in criminal cases remains with the prosecution and that a shortage alone is insufficient without proof of dishonest misappropriation. Convictions and sentences (three years’ rigorou