110 In common with civil cases, one can assume in criminal cases that with the passage of time witnesses will become confused and memories will fade. Evidence may be mislaid. In criminal cases, there is more likely to be the further factor of publicity, which can taint recollection. Although both the State and the accused will be affected by the passage of time, the likelihood is that the State will usually be prejudiced to a much greater degree than the accused. That is because of the burden of proving its case to the very high standard required which rests upon the State in criminal cases. It is also because of the practicalities of the usual criminal trial; unlike many civil cases, the majority of criminal trials still rely very heavily upon oral testimony, and in the general run of criminal trials the accused's witnesses will consist of the accused him or herself and perhaps some family or associates with a close interest in the matter, whose memories might be thought unlikely to fade rapidly. By contrast, the State will often rely to a greater or lesser degree, as in this case, on the memories of lay witnesses having no close connection with the events in question and having therefore no particular reason to recall the events with precision indefinitely. Further, juries are less likely than are Judges to be in a position to make allowance, in assessing the demeanour of witnesses, for the inevitable loss of freshness and immediacy which characterises retrials of events which took place some considerable time before.