Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt PDF

Preview

Summary

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt extra notes to study for BRD205...

Description

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard that the prosecution must meet in order to successfully find a criminal defendant guilty of a crime. This standard applies to each element of the crime. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in criminal cases. Criminal law in Australia is underpinned by the presumption of innocence.

The presumption of innocence The presumption of innocence is one of several guarantees to which individuals are entitled in relation to criminal proceedings. Under international law, it is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The prosecution in a criminal matter bears the burden of proving a charge and subsequently guaranteeing that no guilt can be presumed against an individual until the charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof work alongside each other. The presumption of innocence requires that for the accused to be found guilty, no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts alleged by the prosecution, other than that the accused committed the crime. There must be no reasonable doubt in the court’s mind that guilt exists and therefore a verdict of guilty is appropriate. The burden of proof in criminal matters is significantly higher than in civil matters because of the potential for a finding of guilty to result in complete deprivation on one’s freedom in the form of a sentence of imprisonment. It is important to note that although the court must find a person guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”, there can still be doubt. However, such doubt will need to be found to be unreasonable in order to satisfy this standard of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not require that all doubt be eliminated as this would make meeting this threshold incredibly difficult.

How is the standard of proof applied? The criminal standard of proof is codified in Section 141 of the Evidence Act. This simply provides that in order for the prosecution to be successful its case must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, no further guidelines are provided to help determine how to meet this threshold.

The prosecution must convince the court that based on the evidence, there is no other reasonable explanation other than that the accused is guilty. It is not the job of the accused to establish that he or she is not guilty. Raising reasonable doubt in a court’s mind is sometimes enough to prevent the prosecution meeting this high threshold. The accused need not prove that they did not commit the crime, but merely show that there is an alternative explanation as to the commission of the crime that in all the circumstances is reasonable.

Who decides if the standard of proof has been met? The ultimate determination as to whether an accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is left to the jury, which may come into a matter with its own biases and predispositions. “Reasonable” can have a very different meaning for different individuals.

Why have such a high standard of proof? Our criminal justice system operates on the principle that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent individual. It is this notion that underpins the standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. With such a high threshold, the likelihood of a potentially guilty individual walking free increases. However, it also makes it much more difficult for an innocent individual to be wrongly convicted of a crime.

The Jury A jury is a group of people summoned and sworn to decide on the facts in issue at a trial. The jury is composed of people who represent a cross-section of the community. The jury listens to the evidence during a trial, decides what facts the evidence has established, and draws inferences from those facts to form the basis for their decision. The jury decides whether a defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty" in criminal cases, and "liable" or "not liable" in civil cases. When cases are tried before a jury, the judge still has a major role in determining which evidence may be considered by the jury. The jury is the fact-finder, but it is left to "find" facts only from the evidence which is legally admissible. The judge instructs the jury on the legal principles or rules that must be followed in weighing the facts. If the jury finds the accused guilty or liable, it is up to the judge to sentence the defendant.

Factors the jury will probably take into account As already suggested, of the many factors which may influence a particular juror to modify the reasonable doubt standard, some may be seen as permissible or even desirable, while others are clearly inappropriate. A brief catalogue of some of the possible factors illustrates the point: 









Jurors may evaluate the same evidence differently and adjust the burden of proof based on personal experience. Some of these variations are valid and may be relied on, some are valid (in the sense of logically relevant) but may not be relied on (such as information about the defendant's criminal history) and some may have some experiential basis, but are not permissible (such as racial stereotypes). Jurors may alter the probability required for conviction based on their degree of confidence in the police, the prosecutor, the court and the justice system as a whole. Feelings about such matters can vary significantly from one community to another. Jurors may require a lower standard of proof based on their perception of the danger of the moment. In a ‘rash’ of sex crimes or robberies publicized by the media or post 9/11 in a case where the defendant is charged with attempting to commit terrorist acts, the jury may feel that the risk of setting a guilty defendant free weighs heavily. The jury may elect to convict a defendant for the crime charged on a lower standard of proof based on evidence of defendant's past crimes or problematic life style, which has been admitted only for a limited purpose, on the theory that the defendant probably should be in prison anyway. Jurors may be influenced by their beliefs about the future dangerousness of the defendant. While this may or may not be relevant to sentence, depending on one's theory of punishment, it should not be relevant to a determination of guilt or innocence with respect to the crime charged....