In conclusion on this aspect of my directions, the important point I have been trying to make perhaps over lengthily is that it is your judgment and your judgment alone on the facts that matters.
Now I turn to two very important points of our criminal law about which you have been already quite correctly and emphatically informed by both Counsel. First, in this case the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty. He does not have to prove his innocence. In a criminal trial the burden of proving the defendant's guilt is on the prosecution. Secondly, how does the prosecution succeed in proving the defendant's guilt? The answer is by making you sure of it, and nothing less than that will do. If after considering all the evidence you are sure the defendant is guilty, you must return a verdict of guilty. If you are not sure, your verdict must be not guilty. I add this: the one question you may have been tempted to ask in this case is an impermissible one and must be put out of your minds. That question is if Mr. Park did not kill his wife, who did? That is simply a wrong approach, because it makes Mr. Park prove his innocence, and that most emphatically he does not have to do. The possibility has been raised that John Rapson or some other unknown person may have been the offender, and it follows from that fact that the Crown must prove the case against Mr. Park, but by raising the issue, the defence does not assume the burden of proving that matter. The prosecution must prove to you that it was the defendant and not Rapson or some other individual who is responsible.