However, if the accuser were to sue the accused in civil court for damages, the outcome may be different. The difference between criminal trials and civil trials In cases where the judge thinks that either version could be true, the judge is required to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused because of the presumption of innocence. It’s important to note that this does not mean that the judge did not believe the accuser. However, if the judge believes that there is reasonable chance that the accused’s defense is true, then the judge will likely conclude that there is a reasonable doubt and acquit the accused. A judge may even decide that the accuser’s version of events is more likely than the accused’s. It’s possible for the judge to believe that both witnesses are credible and still acquit the accused. To decide the case, the judge must examine the credibility of both witnesses. For example, in many cases, there will be two contradicting versions of events – that of the accused and of the accuser. In cases involving sexual assault, it’s often not as simple as deciding which story the judge prefers. Beyond a reasonable doubt in cases of sexual assault? However, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that reasonable doubt “falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities” and “that something less than absolute certainty is required, and that something more than probable guilt is required”. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt can be difficult to define. The idea is that this higher standard safeguards the presumption of innocence by reducing the chance that an innocent person will convicted of a crime they didn’t commit. This is because the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms guarantees the presumption of innocence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a high bar to meet. During a criminal trial, the prosecutor must prove all the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt before a judge or jury can convict the accused. These are called “standards of proof”.Ĭriminal trials use proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, what does this mean? What’s a “standard of proof”?ĭuring a trial, there are two ways of deciding who is right – “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and the “balance of probabilities”. When someone is accused of a crime, the judge or jury must decide that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before convicting them of the crime.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2023
Categories |