Beyond reasonable doubt: what does it actually mean?

A note before you rely on this

What follows applies to the burden of proof in criminal trials in Queensland. There are proceedings where you would intuitively expect this standard to apply and it does not, including domestic violence protection order applications, which are decided on the balance of probabilities.

Check with your solicitor which standard applies to your matter and how the evidence stacks up against it, because the answer changes the strategy entirely.

The presumption of innocence

The criminal system starts from the position that it is worse to convict an innocent person than to acquit a guilty one. Not everyone agrees with that trade off, but it is the foundation the rules are built on.

Two things follow. You are presumed innocent unless and until guilt is proven. And to prove guilt, the evidence has to be genuinely compelling.

Two different standards

If one business sues another for money, it does not have to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. It proves its case on the balance of probabilities, meaning it is more likely than not that events happened as alleged. That is close to a coin toss with a thumb on the scale.

Criminal matters are different, because a court will not deprive a person of their liberty on the basis that something was probably true. Doing so would carry an unacceptable risk of imprisoning innocent people.

That comparison is the clearest way to see how high the criminal bar sits. The prosecution has to travel a long way past what would win a civil case.

How high is it?

To reach beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must exclude every reasonable explanation for the evidence other than guilt.

The operative word is reasonable. If the defence suggests an explanation that requires the tribunal of fact to accept something fanciful, that goes nowhere. It is not a reasonable alternative.

But if three people were present at the scene, two remain unaccounted for and only one has been charged, that starts to raise a genuine question about whether the prosecution version is the only reasonable one.

The defendant does not have to prove anything

A defendant may choose to advance an alternative account of events. They are never required to.

The defence does not have to persuade a jury that A, B and C happened instead of what the prosecution alleges. It only has to establish that A, B and C are a reasonable possibility that explains the evidence without guilt.

That is what creating reasonable doubt means. A jury can rationally return a verdict of not guilty even though it does not affirmatively accept the defence account, because the question is never whether the defence version is true. It is whether the prosecution version is the only reasonable one.

There are limited exceptions where a defendant carries a burden, and they are usually evidentiary rather than persuasive. Your solicitor will tell you if one applies.

Who decides, and what if they get it wrong

The decision belongs to whoever is finding the facts. In a trial on indictment that is the jury. In a summary matter, or a judge alone trial, it is the magistrate or judge.

Where a jury decides, the judge directs them on the standard and on the elements of the offence, so that they apply the correct tests to the evidence.

If you believe a verdict was not reasonably open, there are grounds of appeal available. It is not as simple as telling an appeal court that the jury got it wrong and asking for a fresh decision. Appeals are constrained, they run on strict time limits, and they need advice before you start.

Verdicts attract public and media criticism, but weighing evidence to a criminal standard is a heavy task and most jurors take it seriously. The threshold is high precisely because the consequences are.