![]() Proof beyond the idea that "the accused is probably guilty" is required to meet the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.Mathematical certainty is an unrealistically high burden of proof that is not often attainable in a criminal trial. The Crown is not required to prove its case against an accused person with an "absolute certainty" of guilt.Reasonable doubt must not be "imaginary or frivolous." The Court also said it cannot be based on "sympathy or prejudice.".In its decision, the Court stated the following: The Supreme Court of Canada considered the concept of reasonable doubt in R. The definition of "reasonable doubt" is rather complex, but it also really just boils down to common sense. ![]() Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Definition In a sexual assault case, there are several ways a defence lawyer will try to raise a reasonable doubt. It is the job of a criminal defence lawyer to raise enough reasonable doubt(s) in the minds of a judge or jury that they cannot convict based on this stringent requirement. However, the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is far closer to mathematical certainty than to a mere balance of probability. The Crown is not required to prove an accused is guilty to a mathematical certainty. This standard of proof is much higher than for a civil trial which requires mere proof to a balance of probability. ![]() In other words, a person charged with any type of crime in Canada is presumed to be innocent unless and until the Crown is able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. The accused person is considered innocent until proven guilty. An accused person does not have to prove anything. It must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person is guilty. In a Canadian criminal case such as sexual assault, the Crown has the burden of proof. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |