While both balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt are standards of proof that the courts use to determine the outcome of a case, there are certain differences between the two.
The main difference is that balance of probabilities is the standard of proof used in civil law cases, and beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of proof used in criminal law matters.
According to balance of probabilities the courts must be satisfied that there is greater likelihood of the events having occurred than not. In other words, when a plaintiff sues the defendant, they have to prove using evidence and facts that the likelihood of the defendant causing harm to the plaintiff is higher than otherwise.
On the other hand, in criminal matters, the courts must be satisfied that the accused is guilty of the crime or offence beyond reasonable doubt. This protects the accused person as it shows that they are innocent until proven guilty.
These benchmarks or standards of proof are used for all civil law and criminal law matters.
Balance of Probabilities
In Australia, the Evidence Act 1995 provides a framework for the court to use to decide if the standard of proof of balance of probabilities has been satisfied. This framework includes the following points:
- The nature of the cause of action or defence,
- The gravity of the matters alleged, and
- The nature of the subject matter of the proceedings.
Importantly, courts take a holistic approach when trying to determine a case based on this standard of proof. Both sides must provide ample of evidence to the court.
Once both sides provide all evidence, the court must be satisfied that one case is more plausible than the other on the balance of probabilities.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt
This criminal standard of proof is set out in Section 141 of the Evidence Act 1995. It states that if the prosecution has to succeed in a case, they must establish their case beyond reasonable doubt.
This means that the prosecution has the onus to prove that based on all the evidence there is no other reasonable explanation than that the accused is guilty of the charge or offence.
Whether an accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is ultimately determined by the jury. Naturally, we must also take into consideration that the jury may have their own biases. This means that whether a person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt can be highly subjective.
This is why people can appeal against any verdict if they feel that a higher court should look at the evidence again. The higher court can then review the evidence again and determine if the decision made by the court was the right one.
Author info:
John Bui is the Principal Solicitor of JB Solicitors – a law firm based in Sydney, Australia. John is a Nationally Accredited family law Mediator and Arbitrator with over 10 years’ experience in family law and commercial litigation.