Standard of proof Flashcards
Discharging burden of proof
Any party bearing a legal burden of proof must discharge this burden to the standard required.
In general, where the legal burden is on the prosecution it must be discharged “beyond reasonable doubt”. Any element which the defence bears the burden of proving need only be proved on the “balance of probabilities”.
Beyond reasonable doubt
The courts have traditionally been reluctant to provide any detailed or precise definition of the meaning of “beyond reasonable doubt”.
However, a majority of the Court of Appeal in R v Wanhalla7
formulated some assistance to juries after reviewing overseas research and models, concluding that juries should be told that a reasonable doubt is “an honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about the guilt of the defendant after you have given careful and impartial consideration to all of the evidence” [at
49].
This approach has been endorsed by the Court in the later case of R v Peato8, where the Court stated that the Wanhalla formulation is not mandatory but should be encouraged to promote consistency.
The majority in R v Wanhalla9 suggested the following direction be given: “The starting point is the presumption of innocence. You must treat the accused as innocent until the Crown has proved his or her guilt. The presumption of innocence means that the accused does not have to give or call any evidence and does not have to establish his or her innocence.
The Crown must prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a very high standard of proof which the Crown will have met only if, at the end of the case, you are sure that the accused is guilty. It is not enough for the Crown to persuade you that the accused is probably guilty or even that he or she is very likely guilty.
On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty when dealing with the reconstruction of past events and the Crown does not have to do so.
What then is reasonable doubt? A reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about the guilt of the accused after you have given careful and impartial consideration to all of the evidence.” In summary, if, after careful and impartial consideration of the evidence, you are sure that the accused is guilty you must find him or her guilty. On the other hand, if you are not sure that the accused is guilty, you must find him or her not guilty. ”
Balance of probabilities
Where the defence is required to prove a particular element, such as insanity, on the balance of probabilities, it must simply show that it is more probable than not. If the probabilities are equal, the burden is not discharged.
