Definition of Reasonable Doubt
For an accused to be convicted of a criminal offence at trial, the Crown is required to show “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the accused committed the essential elements of that offence. This is known as the criminal standard of proof, and if the Crown is successful in meeting this standard, the accused will be found guilty. However, if the Crown fails to meet their burden of proof for a specific offence, the accused cannot be found guilty of that charge.
The definition of “beyond a reasonable doubt” has been heavily considered by the Canadian courts, with the leading case on the standard being the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Lifchus. In this case, the Supreme Court highlighted that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is intertwined with the presumption of innocence, and that the burden of proof always rests with the Crown.
The Supreme Court found that beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty. However, more is required than proof that the accused is “probably guilty”. The court held that if a jury concludes that an accused is “probably” guilty, they must acquit the accused. As shown by the Supreme Court of Canada, the criminal standard of proof differs from mere suspicion or probability. While guilt does not have to be an absolute certainty, it is a far stricter standard than “probable guilt”.
To read more about what the Supreme Court says about the reasonable doubt standard, you can access R. v. Lifchus here.
Purpose of the Reasonable Doubt Standard
The reasonable doubt standard plays a critical role in upholding the fundamental principles of the criminal justice system.
First and foremost, the criminal standard of proof ensures that the presumption of innocence remains intact. In order to find an accused guilty, it is always the Crown who must prove that the accused committed the crime that they are standing trial for. The reasonable doubt standard requires the Crown to always prove their case in full, whether or not the accused chooses to give any evidence. It is not necessary for an accused to prove they are innocent, as they only have to show that there is reasonable doubt that they committed an offence.
Second, having a high standard of proof in criminal cases is an effective safeguard against wrongful convictions. Without this protection, there would be a serious risk of people being convicted of crimes that they did not commit. In a free and democratic society, this result would be unacceptable. The reasonable doubt standard reinforces the long-standing principle that it is better for guilty people to go free, than for an innocent person to be convicted.
How Reasonable Doubt is Applied in Court
In a criminal trial, the judge and jury have important roles in assessing evidence. A trial judge is required to explain to the jury the critical evidence and the law that are relevant to the essential issues in the case. The jury then has the task of considering the evidence that they have heard to determine whether they believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the offence(s) that they have been charged with.
There are several instances where the jury may have reasonable doubt that comes from their role in assessing the evidence. If there is conflicting testimony between two witnesses, the jury could have reasonable doubt when one witness says the accused committed the offence, and the other says they did not. A jury could also have reasonable doubt where there is a lack of concrete evidence to prove that the accused committed the crime. While an accused can still be convicted through circumstantial evidence, the Crown needs to prove that the circumstantial evidence against them has no other rational explanation than that the accused is guilty of the offence.
For an accused who is tried by a jury, the trial judge plays a crucial role in ensuring that the jury understands the reasonable doubt standard. After all evidence and final arguments are heard at a criminal trial, the judge provides a “charge” to the jury, which contains information regarding the reasonable doubt standard. The trial judge’s instruction will include explaining how “reasonable doubt” does not require absolute certainty but is a much higher bar to prove than the accused having “probably” committed the crime. If a trial judge fails to properly instruct the jury on the reasonable doubt standard, an accused may have a right to appeal any decision of guilt made against them.
What Reasonable Doubt is NOT
To fully understand what the reasonable doubt standard is, it is important to know what reasonable doubt is NOT.
While the criminal standard proof is a high burden for the Crown to meet, they are not required to prove with absolute certainty that an accused committed the necessary legal elements of an offence. The Canadian courts have routinely found that it is virtually impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty, and the Crown is not required to do so.
The word “reasonable” is important to define when considering the criminal standard of proof. A “reasonable” doubt is not one which is irrational or fanciful. The Crown is not required to disprove every possible theory that an accused did not commit a crime. They are only required to dispute theories that are based in reason and common sense, having been logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence in any given case.
The criminal standard of proof is also not a balance of probabilities, which is the standard of proof in civil cases. If a jury finds that an accused “probably” committed the crime that they are on trial for, they are required to acquit. Canadian courts have routinely found that the reasonable doubt standard is much closer to absolute certainty than it is to proof on a balance of probabilities.
Conclusion
The “reasonable doubt” standard of proof plays a crucial role in Canada’s criminal justice system. For an accused to be found guilty of an offence, the trier of fact must believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the essential elements of that offence. While the Crown is not required to prove with absolute certainty that an accused committed the offence, they are required to prove more than just probable guilt. If a jury finds that an accused is “probably guilty”, they are required to acquit.
This standard of proof is essential for maintaining a fair and just legal system. It ensures that the burden of proof always lies with the Crown, and that the accused is not required to prove that they are innocent at trial. This high bar also safeguards against wrongful convictions, and reinforces the long-standing principle that it is better for guilty people to go free, than it is for an innocent person to be convicted.
If you have been charged with a crime, contact one of our criminal defence lawyers immediately. Our firm exclusively practices criminal law and we will use our knowledge and experience to help navigate you through the criminal justice system, ensuring that you return to your life as normal quicker.
