Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
My Account
LawTeacher
Services
Essays
Guarantees
Law Help
Contact Us
Order Now
My Account
Search
LawTeacher
Services
Essays
Guarantees
Law Help
Contact Us
Order Now
Criminal Law
The criminal law essay below has been submitted to us by a student in order to
help you with your studies.
1.
Homepage
2.
3.
Criminal Law
4.
in a criminal case is that of beyond reasonable doubt whereas the standard of proof changes,
even lowers to the balance of probabilities in cases of civil proceedings. It is also widely
understood that the standard is higher in criminal cases. This does not mean that the actual
quantity of evidence adduced should be more but speaks more of the nature of evidence. Even
though such a bifurcation exists, a problem might crop up in the form of criminal charges within
a civil case. This is one of the most important questions that the researcher has tried to analyse in
this paper. The researcher has analysed the meaning and scope of the two standards, the position
in India and finally, the question of a third standard.
Even though the concept, as well as the term, reasonable doubt was greatly acknowledged by
the House of Lords in Woolmington v. D.P.P [4] , later decisions have shown that the Court,
especially with respect to jury direction, does not consider it an obligation to use the term while
explaining the level of proof required. It is often emphasized that the degree of persuasion, even
in criminal cases, be determined depending on the unique characteristics of the case at hand. As a
result, the generalized use of the term is not considered indispensable for a valid trial. [5] In
common law cases, while explaining the standard of proof needed in criminal cases, even while
avoiding the phrase beyond reasonable doubt, the Courts have explained to the jury that the
doubt they were expecting should be the kind which might arise when the jury are themselves
dealing with matters of importance in their own affairs. [6] This is important because if the
Courts were to be less specific and characterize the doubt to be the kind that would come up in
everyday affairs, the envisaged high standard of proof would be suitably lowered. This is of
significance because even though absolute certainty is not expected, the deciding authority is
supposed to come as close to it as practically possible. [7] In the United States of America,
arguments were made against defining beyond reasonable doubt while directing the juries as
this was believed to have reduced the level of satisfaction required in the minds of the jurors and
thereby increasing the chances of conviction. The Courts held that as long as the terms used in
the definitions were in line with the case as a whole, there was no error committed. The same
view has been held valid in common law countries as well. [8]
A lower standard, that of balance (or preponderance) of probability is applied in civil litigation.
Even though the standard of proof is lower in civil cases, it is no reflection on the seriousness of
the allegations in question. The rationale behind the use of such a standard is that in some cases
the question of the probability or the improbability of a happening is an imperative consideration
to be taken into account in deciding whether that event has actually taken place or not. [9] In
other words, even when a very serious allegation has been made in a civil case, the standard of
proof is not considered to be automatically raised to come closer to the criminal
standard. [10] However, there are certain cases which are primarily civil in nature but require, in
the view of the Court, a standard of proof applicable in criminal proceedings. [11] The
exceptions to the aforementioned general rule in civil cases include civil contempt of Court and.
applications for orders relating to sex offenders or those exhibiting anti-social behaviour. [12] In
other cases where there are criminal allegations as part of civil cases, the standard in use is the
balance of probability. The reason behind this was explained in Hornal v. Neuberger Products
Ltd. [13] , where it was held that within the scope of balance of probabilities, there might be
varying degrees therein. It is thus suggested that there are innumerable degrees present that
fluctuate on a case to case basis. [14]
Since varying degrees within the same standard of proof threatened to cause irregularity or
absurdity, suggestions were made to create a third standard of probability, which were shot down
in common law jurisdictions, reaffirming that only two standards of proof would be operational
in these jurisdictions. Contrastingly, the United States of America has in fact created this third
standard, present somewhere in between reasonable doubt and balance of probability. This
midway standard is characterized by the terms clear and convincing evidence and is used as the
measure of persuasion essential in the type of cases which involve allegations of criminal or
quasi-criminal actions within (what is at its crux) a civil case. The reasons behind the
construction of such an intermediary standard is to make the trying of such cases easy as are
concerned with important rights of an individual in civil cases. [15] In spite of it being
considered a third standard, reasonable doubt has been shown to coexist with clear and
convincing evidence, leading to the assertion that the distinction between the two remains
obscured. [16]
Apex Court has laid down that the conscience of the Court cannot be bound by any rule or
provision but the fact that such a conscience is rising is proof of the fact that prudent judgment is
at play. This has been likened to explain the standard of reasonable doubt. The doubt which is
created in the mind of a reasonable man is to be taken into account while coming to a conclusion
and for this doubt to be important enough, it must be proportional in nature to the offence alleged
in the case. [26]
Where reasonable doubt is the standard of proof in criminal cases, the standard required for civil
cases is the balance of probabilities. The standard continues to be the balance of probabilities
even in cases which are primarily civil in nature but where a criminal charge may be made out
against the party. This is concluded from the definitions of the terms proved and not proved,
from the Act. Basically, in civil litigation, the Judge has to decide in favour of that party who is
supported by the preponderance of proof. This, again, does not mean the evidence considered be
wholly exempt from doubt. [27] It has been held by the courts that for civil cases, the parties are
required to make their best case before the courts based on which the decision is granted in
favour of either of the parties. For criminal cases, the Court must take all the requisite measure to
find out all the relevant adduced and ensure that justice is meted out. [28]
to proved with certainty. This is perhaps to avoid the severe consequences arising from a
wrongful conviction.
Especially in criminal cases, an impartial moral conviction cannot be the sole basis for
sentencing the accused but must be backed by such findings and evidence that prove that no
other chain of events except the one endorsing the conviction is reasonably possible. [35] Those
facts which support the incrimination of the accused should be find to be in contravention of the
circumstantial evidence on record. This is important even though circumstantial evidence is not
given the status of conclusive proof; it is just as important as it acts as a ground for forming
suspicion against the accused and a negation of the same would help the case of the accused,
again, if proved beyond reasonable doubt. [36] For this, the circumstantial evidence recovered
should not be justifiable. [37] in fact, there is usually no distinction drawn between
circumstantial evidence and any other kind of evidence. [38] As established is the standard of
proof for criminal trials, the same is construed liberally when the burden of proof of proving an
exception is shifted to the accused. In other words, in a criminal case, when the burden rests on
the prosecution, a fact being proved would mean a higher standard of proof is necessary while
the same (in case of exceptions, for example) is lowered when this burden must be discharged by
the accused. [39] Even so, the Indian Evidence Act doest not contain in its text any mention of
the level of satisfaction to be created in a reasonable mans mind being different in a situation
where the accused has to discharge the burden of proof from when the prosecution must do
so. [40] Even though it speaks of a possible shifting of the burden of proof, the fact that the
standard of proof is brought down in case of such a shift is explained through decisions of the
Court and not based on any statutory provision.
It should also be kept in mind that it is not up to the Court to demand that a certain method of
proving a fact should be exclusively used with respect to a case before it unless a specific Act
requires this to be done. Similarly, the Court cannot ask for a different standard of proof than
what is actually sufficient in a particular case. If asked for, it would be deemed a procedural error
or an error in law. [41]
Conclusion
In the course of writing this research paper, the researcher has been able to draw a few
inferences. Firstly, even though the standard of beyond reasonable doubt is higher, it is nowhere
expected that the evidence be able to prove the fact absolutely. As long as there is no scope for a
prudent mind to doubt the occurrence of an event, that version of events is termed valid. Also
simply because the standard of balance of probabilities is considered to be lower than the
standard used in criminal trials, it cannot be validly concluded that the seriousness of the matter
in civil cases is not given due regard. In the opinion of the researcher, however, there is also a
nexus between the nature of penalty in the two cases and the standard of proof to be discharged.
Secondly, quite often, the Courts have received suggestions to design a third standard of proof,
which would be somewhere between the criminal standard and the civil one. Even though it
seems that this could be the possible solution to peculiar circumstances, like that of criminal
allegations within a civil suit, in the humble opinion of the researcher this would create
confusion and absurdity, further burdening the judicial system. That there are still ambiguous
areas in the presence of two standards shows that perhaps a third standard is not the best step at
present.
More Criminal Law EssaysExample Criminal Law EssaysCriminal Law Essay Writing Service
Contacting Us
0115 966 7966
enquiries@lawteacher.net
Contact Page
enquiries@lawteacher.net
Contact Us
About Us
Become a Researcher
Services
o
All Services
Useful Links
o
LLM Resources
Law Help
Law Resources
Copyright 2003 - 2016 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company
registered in England and Wales. Company Registration No: 4964706. VAT Registration No:
842417633. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Registered office: Venture House, Cross
Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ.
Privacy Policy
Cookies
Complaints