743:
whole numbers as the increment of measurement). Some courts and scholars have suggested probable cause could, in some circumstances, allow for a fact to be established as true to a standard of less than 51%, but as of August 2019, the United States
Supreme Court has never ruled that the quantification of probable cause is anything less than 51%. Probable cause can be contrasted with "reasonable articulable suspicion" which requires a police officer to have an unquantified amount of certainty the courts say is well below 51% before briefly detaining a suspect (without consent) to pat them down and attempt to question them. The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, used by criminal juries in the United States to determine guilt for a crime, also contrasts with probable cause which courts hold requires an unquantified level of proof well above that of probable cause's 51%. Though it is beyond the scope of this topic, when courts review whether 51% probable cause certainty was a reasonable judgment, the legal inquiry is different for police officers in the field than it would be for grand jurors. In
1125:...it is enough that the affirmative of an allegation is made out to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters “reasonable satisfaction” should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences. Everyone must feel that, when, for instance, the issue is on which of two dates an admitted occurrence took place, a satisfactory conclusion may be reached on materials of a kind that would not satisfy any sound and prudent judgment if the question was whether some act had been done involving grave moral delinquency
663:
the officer can point to specific facts and circumstances and inferences therefrom that would amount to a reasonable suspicion. The officer must be prepared to establish that criminal activity was a logical explanation for what they perceived. The requirement serves to prevent officers from stopping individuals based merely on hunches or unfounded suspicions. The purpose of the stop and detention is to investigate to the extent necessary to confirm or dispel the original suspicion. If the initial confrontation with the person stopped dispels suspicion of criminal activity the officer must end the detention and allow the person to go about their business. If the investigation confirms the officer's initial suspicion or reveals evidence that would justify continued detention the officer may require the person detained to remain at the scene until further investigation is complete, and may give rise to the level of probable cause.
1053:
hand, where it is not at all improbable. Other seriously harmful behaviour, such as alcohol or drug abuse, is regrettably all too common and not at all improbable. Nor are serious allegations made in a vacuum. Consider the famous example of the animal seen in Regent’s Park. If it is seen outside the zoo on a stretch of greensward regularly used for walking dogs, then of course it is more likely to be a dog than a lion. If it is seen in the zoo next to the lions’ enclosure when the door is open, then it may well be more likely to be a lion than a dog.
2398:
innocence, the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard of proof in criminal proceedings, the privilege against self-incrimination, limitations on the use of secret evidence, limitations on ex parte proceedings, limitations on any power to continue proceedings in the face of an unrepresented party, limitations on courts' jurisdiction to make an adverse finding on law or fact that has not been put to the parties, and limitations on the power of a court or a judge to proceed where proceedings may be affected by actual or apprehended bias".
931:. Once raised by the defense, the state must present its evidence in a pre-trial hearing, showing that the statutory prerequisites have not been met, and then request that the court deny a motion for declaration of immunity. The judge must then decide from clear and convincing evidence whether to grant immunity. This is a lower burden than "beyond a reasonable doubt", the threshold a prosecutor must meet at any proceeding criminal trial, but higher than the "probable cause" threshold generally required for
843:, described it simply as "more probable than not". Another high-level way of interpreting that is that the plaintiff’s case (evidence) be 51% likely. A more precise statement is that “the weight is determined not by the amount of evidence, but by its quality.” The author goes on to affirm that preponderance is “merely enough to tip the scales” towards one party; however, that tilt need only be so slight as the weight of a “feather.” Until 1970, it was also the standard used in juvenile court in the
36:
784:(CPS) proceedings. This proof standard is used where short-term intervention is needed urgently, such as when a child is arguably in immediate danger from a parent or guardian. The "some credible evidence" standard is used as a legal placeholder to bring some controversy before a trier of fact, and into a legal process. It is on the order of the factual standard of proof needed to achieve a finding of "probable cause" used in
2204:(paragraph 15): I wish to lay some stress upon the words I have italicised. Lord Nicholls was not laying down any rule of law. There is only one rule of law, namely that the occurrence of the fact in issue must be proved to have been more probable than not. Common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question, regard should be had, to whatever extent appropriate, to inherent probabilities.
612:"Reasonable indication (also known as reasonable suspicion) is substantially lower than probable cause; factors to consider are those facts and circumstances a prudent investigator would consider, but must include facts or circumstances indicating a past, current, or impending violation; an objective factual basis must be present, a mere 'hunch' is insufficient."
1813:
false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth
Amendment, as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request. The trial court here therefore erred in refusing to examine the adequacy of petitioner's proffer of misrepresentation in the warrant affidavit."
2542:
1483:
or exemptions. ... Under some circumstances this Court has even placed the burden of persuasion over an entire claim on the defendant. ... bsent some reason to believe that
Congress intended otherwise, therefore, will conclude that the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief."
1342:, s.101 stipulates that where a defendant relies on some "exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification" in their defence in a summary trial, the legal burden of proof as to that exception falls on the defendant, though only on the balance of probabilities. For example, a person charged with being
1482:
At the same time, the
Supreme Court also recognized "The ordinary default rule, of course, admits of exceptions. ... For example, the burden of persuasion as to certain elements of a plaintiff's claim may be shifted to defendants, when such elements can fairly be characterized as affirmative defenses
1210:
to determine whether a criminal defense may be used. The test asks whether a defense can be successful if it is assumed that all the claimed facts are to be true. In most cases, the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution, negating the need for a defense of this kind. However, when exceptions
1031:
that there was no likelihood of the accused driving while still over the alcohol limit). However, where the law does not stipulate a reverse burden of proof, the defendant need only raise the issue and it is then for the prosecution to negate the defence to the criminal standard in the usual way (for
888:
must prove his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence. New York State uses this standard when a court must determine whether to involuntarily hospitalize a mentally ill patient or to issue an
Assisted Outpatient Treatment Order. This standard was also codified by the United States Supreme
790:
threshold determinations needed before a court will issue a search warrant. It is a lower standard of proof than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. The standard does not require the fact-finder to weigh conflicting evidence, and merely requires the investigator or prosecutor to present the
2273:
Proving the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of proof the Crown must achieve before you can convict and the words mean exactly what they say — proof beyond reasonable doubt. When you finish considering the evidence in the trial and the submissions made by the parties you must
1442:
stated: "There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, 'is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations'." For support, the Court cited 9 John H. Wigmore, Evidence § 2486, at 275
1237:
Depending on the legal venue or intra-case hearing, varying levels of reliability of proof are considered dispositive of the inquiry being entertained. If the subject threshold level of reliability has been met by the presentation of the evidence, then the thing is considered legally proved for that
1083:
The
Australian constitution does not expressly provide that criminal trials must be 'fair', nor does it set out the elements of a fair trial, but it may by implication protect other attributes. The High Court has moved toward, but not yet, entrenched procedural fairness as a constitutional right. If
1057:
The task for the tribunal then when faced with serious allegations is to recognize that their seriousness generally means they are inherently unlikely, such that to be satisfied that a fact is more likely than not the evidence must be of a good quality. But the standard of proof remains 'the balance
539:
A "burden of proof" is a party's duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge, and includes the burden of production (providing enough evidence on an issue so that the trier-of-fact decides it rather than in a peremptory ruling like a directed verdict) and the burden of persuasion (standard of proof
1302:
Burden of production: P has to show some evidence that D had committed murder. The United States
Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution requires enough evidence to justify a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the judge rules that such burden has been met, then
1048:
70. ... Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth
742:
agents had a reason to execute a search. Courts have traditionally interpreted the idea of "a fair probability" as meaning whether a fair-minded evaluator would have reason to find it more likely than not that a fact (or ultimate fact) is true, which is quantified as a 51% certainty standard (using
2424:
In the plurality judgment, the error committed by the
Industrial Court was adjudged to mean that the Court conducted a trial that was not in accordance with the laws of evidence. Accordingly, the Industrial Court acted 'in breach of the limits on its power to try charges of a criminal offence' and
1107:
In
Australia, the civil standard is termed the 'balance of probabilities'. In Australia, the 'balance of probabilities' involves considerations that the evidence required to establish a fact at the civil standard will vary with the seriousness of what is being alleged. Although it has been noted a
938:
Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not and the trier of fact must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality. In this standard, a greater degree of believability must be met
662:
An investigatory stop is a seizure under the Fourth
Amendment. The state must justify the seizure by showing that the officer conducting the stop had a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. The important point is that officers cannot deprive a citizen of liberty unless
2397:
8.36 The High Court may have moved towards—but stopped short of—entrenching procedural fairness as a constitutional right. If procedural fairness were considered an essential characteristic of a court, this might have the potential, among other things, to constitutionalise "the presumption of
1346:
of a motor vehicle can raise the defense that there was no likelihood of their driving while drunk. The prosecution has the legal burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant exceeded the legal limit of alcohol and was in control of a motor vehicle. Possession of the keys is usually
1052:
72. ... there is no logical or necessary connection between seriousness and probability. Some seriously harmful behaviour, such as murder, is sufficiently rare to be inherently improbable in most circumstances. Even then there are circumstances, such as a body with its throat cut and no weapon to
969:
in criminal proceedings. It has been described, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a
1812:
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154,155-156; 438 U.S. 164-172 (1978). "Where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly
973:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that one would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of one's own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's
1171:
was required to rely on stronger proof than in the context of a normal allegation to win their case. In the end, despite the high burden of proof required, Fairfax won the trial, with Besanko ruling that it was proven he "broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement and is therefore a
566:
There is no burden of proof with regard to motive or animus in criminal cases in the United States. The intent surrounding an offense is nevertheless crucial to the elements of the offense in a first-degree-murder conviction. This brings up the ethical dilemma of whether or not a death sentence
942:
This standard is also known as "clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence"; "clear, cognizant, and convincing evidence", and is applied in cases or situations involving an equitable remedy or where a presumptive civil liberty interest exists. For example, this is the standard or quantum of
1039:
UKHL 35 there had been some confusion – even at the Court of Appeal – as to whether there was some intermediate standard, described as the 'heightened standard'. The House of Lords found that there was not. As the above description of the American system shows, anxiety by judges about making
1074:
The criminal standard in Australia is, 'beyond reasonable doubt'. An offence against a Commonwealth law, with a term of imprisonment in excess of 12 months is an 'indictable offence'; and is constitutionally required to be tried before jury of 12 people. Offences that do not carry a term of
857:
While there is no federal definition, such as by definition of the courts or by statute applicable to all cases, The Merit Systems Protection Board’s has codified their definition at 5 CFR 1201.56(c)(2). MSPB defines the standard as “The degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person,
575:
Burden of proof refers most generally to the obligation of a party to prove its allegations at trial. In a civil case, the plaintiff sets forth its allegations in a complaint, petition or other pleading. The defendant is then required to file a responsive pleading denying some or all of the
515:, a translation of which is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." In civil suits, for example, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the defendant's action or inaction caused injury to the plaintiff, and the defendant bears the burden of proving an
2543:
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=§ion=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=cited
1447:, the Supreme Court held that if "school authorities have been found to have practiced purposeful segregation in part of a school system", the burden of persuasion shifts to the school to prove that it did not engage in such discrimination in other segregated schools in the same system.
997:
The main reason that this high level of proof is demanded in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in their death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which monetary damages are the common remedy.
1020:
The criminal standard was formerly described as "beyond reasonable doubt". That standard remains , and the words commonly used , though the Judicial Studies Board guidance is that juries might be assisted by being told that to convict they must be persuaded "so that you are sure".
563:, or burden of production, or duty of producing (or going forward with evidence) which is an obligation that may shift between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. The evidential burden is the burden to adduce sufficient evidence to properly raise an issue at court.
1303:
it is up to the jury itself to decide if they are, in fact, convinced of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the judge finds there is not enough evidence under the standard, the case must be dismissed (or a subsequent guilty verdict must be vacated and the charges dismissed).
1841:
1469:. The Supreme Court explained that if a statute is silent about the burden of persuasion, the court will "begin with the ordinary default rule that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims". In support of this proposition, the Court cited 2 J. Strong,
1414:, the burden of proof usually requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.
504:
to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.
795:
18 F.3d 992 (2nd Cir. 1994). In some Federal Appellate Circuit Courts, such as the Second Circuit, the "some credible evidence" standard has been found constitutionally insufficient to protect liberty interests of the parties in controversy at CPS hearings.
1477:
The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or
2369:
8.30 The Australian Constitution does not expressly provide that criminal trials must be 'fair', nor does it set out the elements of a fair trial, but it does protect many attributes of a fair trial and may by implication be found to protect other
1417:
This rule is not absolute in civil lawsuits; unlike with criminal offenses, laws may establish a different burden of proof, or the burden in an individual case may be reversed as a matter of fairness. For example, if a bank or government agency has a
683:(1981) and concluded that police officers are allowed to go back and search a vehicle incident to a suspect's arrest only where it is "reasonable to believe" that there is more evidence in the vehicle of the crime for which the suspect was arrested.
603:
for a disciplinary violation, prison officials need only have "some evidence", i.e., "a modicum of evidence"; however, the sentencing judge is under no obligation to adhere to good/work time constraints, nor are they required to credit time served.
858:
considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue.” One author highlights the phrase “more likely to be true than untrue” as the critical component of the definition.
633:
investigative stop or search by a police officer or any government agent is warranted. This stop or search must be brief; its thoroughness is proportional to, and limited by, the low standard of evidence. A more definite standard of proof (often
974:
evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty.
869:
Clear and convincing evidence is a higher level of burden of persuasion than "preponderance of the evidence", but less than "beyond reasonable doubt". It is employed intra-adjudicatively in administrative court determinations, as well as in
567:
should be imposed when the defendant's motives or intentions are the contingent factors in sentencing. However, in some cases such as defamation suits with a public figure as the defamed party, the public figure must prove actual malice.
977:
If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
1347:
sufficient to prove control, even if the defendant is not in the vehicle and is perhaps in a nearby bar. That being proved, the defendant has the legal burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that they were not likely to drive.
2686:
1238:
trial, hearing or inquest. For example, in California, several evidentiary presumptions are codified, including a presumption that the owner of legal title is the beneficial owner (rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence).
981:
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty which precludes the existence of any reasonable alternatives. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no
1186:
principle is much different to beyond reasonable doubt". The decision has also been noted for affecting the ability of litigants to seek redress in anti-discrimination lawsuits, due to the seriousness of such allegations.
2719:
543:
A "burden of persuasion" or "risk of non-persuasion" is an obligation that remains on a single party for the duration of the court proceeding. Once the burden has been entirely discharged to the satisfaction of the
1079:
Magistrates Court with the consent of all parties; however the court may not impose a sentence greater than 12 months. Juries are required to make findings of guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal matters.
1993:
2382:
2354:
1326:
Burden of persuasion: if at the close of evidence, the jury cannot decide if P has established with relevant level of certainty that D had committed murder, the jury must find D not guilty of the crime of murder
677:(2009), the United States Supreme Court defined a new standard, that of "reasonable to believe". This standard applies only to vehicle searches after the suspect has been placed under arrest. The Court overruled
939:
than the common standard of proof in civil actions (i.e. preponderance of the evidence), which only requires that the facts as a threshold be more likely than not to prove the issue for which they are asserted.
2047:
994:, certain jurisdictions specifically require the prosecution's burden of proof to be such that the facts proved must exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis or inference other than guilt.
1211:
arise and the burden of proof has been shifted to the defendant, they are required to establish a defense that bears an "air of reality". Two instances in which such a case might arise are, first, when a
2085:
Clear and convincing evidence is typically defined as that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegation sought to be
965:
This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in juvenile delinquency proceedings, criminal proceedings, and when considering
2678:
1066:
In Australia, two standards of proof are applied at common law: the criminal standard and the civil standard. It is possible for other standards of proof to be applied where required by law.
686:
There is still an ongoing debate as to the exact meaning of this phrase. Some courts have said it should be a new standard while others have equated it with the "reasonable suspicion" of the
2841:
704:
Probable cause is a higher standard of proof than reasonable suspicion, which is used in the United States to determine whether a search, or an arrest, is unreasonable. It is also used by
659:
ruled that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable, and individualized suspicion that crime is afoot. A mere guess or "hunch" is not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion.
1701:
552:
in a criminal case places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offense (generally beyond a reasonable doubt), and to disprove all the defenses except for
1398:. The defendant is presumed to have fled the scene of a crash, to avoid civil or criminal liability, if the prosecution can prove the remaining essential elements of the offense.
2709:
1281:. Where it is upheld, the accused will be found not guilty if this burden of proof is not sufficiently shown by the prosecution. The presumption of innocence means three things:
2816:
1291:
The jury is not to draw any inferences adverse to the defendant from the fact that they have been charged with a crime and are present in court facing the charges against them.
210:
2317:
Offences under commonwealth law will either be: A summary offence, punishable by up to 12 months in prison An indictable offence, punishable by more than 12 months in prison.
1075:
imprisonment exceeding 12 months are called 'Summary Offences'. Some offences (with a term of imprisonment <10 years) may be heard by a court of summary jurisdiction,
1989:
780:
Some credible evidence is one of the least demanding standards of proof. This proof standard is often used in administrative law settings and in some states to initiate
2412:"Lacey, Wendy --- "Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales: Breathing Life into Kable" [2010] MelbULawRw 21; (2010) 34(2) Melbourne University Law Review 641"
1779:, 392 US at 27 "the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger."
1108:
similar approach is taken in Canada. In the United Kingdom the evidential requirements of the civil standard of proof don't vary with the seriousness of an allegation.
2762:""Kate Eastman, SC, said the barriers making criminal prosecutions of sexual assault difficult also applied to bringing civil cases." Indeed. It's hard to see how the
2861:
The critical facts of a criminal case are whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant is criminally responsible for the commission of the crime.
2039:
1089:
2515:
2500:
986:
doubt is possible from the evidence presented. Further to this notion of moral certainty, where the trier of fact relies on proof that is solely circumstantial,
1330:
Measure of proof: P has to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, but not necessarily prove every single fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
804:
Preponderance of the evidence (American English), also known as balance of probabilities (British English), is the standard required in civil cases, including
1027:
The civil standard is also used in criminal trials in relation to those defenses which must be proven by the defendant (for example, the statutory defense to
847:. Compared to the criminal standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” the preponderance of the evidence standard is “a somewhat easier standard to meet.”
3007:
2988:
2966:
2874:
2135:
1930:
1611:
724:
645:
1040:
decisions on very serious matters on the basis of the balance of probabilities had led to a departure from the common law principles of just two standards.
2192:
1295:
For example, if the defendant (D) is charged with murder, the prosecutor (P) bears the burden of proof to show the jury that D did indeed murder someone.
1017:; and Scotland) there are only two standards of proof in trials. There are others which are defined in statutes, such as those relating to police powers.
1156:
sense. The need to proceed with caution is clear if, for example, there is an allegation of fraud or an allegation of criminal or moral wrongdoing..".
861:
From 2013 to 2020, the Department of Education required schools to use a preponderance of evidence standard in evaluating sexual assault claims (USA).
1975:
765:: an involuntary stop initiated by the officer to briefly detain, attempt to question, and pat down outer clothing of a person of interest to police.
1902:
2837:
2516:"An, R (on the application of) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1605 (21 December 2005)"
820:
determinations between parties having equal legal rights respecting a child. It is also the standard of proof by which the defendant must prove
54:
2160:
1736:
1365:
A legal / persuasive burden did not necessarily contravene art. 6(2) so long as confined within reasonable limits, considering the questions:
1095:
2541:
Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas)
1117:, which is the fifth most cited decision of Australia's High Court. The case has since been incorporated into the uniform evidence law. The
1685:
1141:
Justices French and Jacobson stated the "Briginshaw test does not create any third standard of proof between the civil and the criminal."
2761:
749:, the U.S. Supreme Court held that probable cause requires that there not be "reckless disregard for the truth" of the facts asserted.
2808:
2291:(153 ed.). Australia: Commonwealth of Australia - Attorney General's Department (published 18 January 2024). 8 January 2024. s4G.
615:
The reasonable indication standard is used in interpreting trade law in determining if the United States has been materially injured.
1454:, the Supreme Court explained that "burden of proof" is ambiguous because it has historically referred to two distinct burdens: the
17:
2014:
2124:
1662:
1355:
2225:
International Comparative Legal Guides - Cartels & Leniency 2020: A practical cross-border insight into cartels & leniency
2073:
1640:
3088:
885:
1422:
to keep certain records, and a lawsuit alleges that the proper records were not kept, then the plaintiff may not be required to
791:
bare minimum of material credible evidence to support the allegations against the subject, or in support of the allegation; see
2258:
487:
2941:
1084:
it did so, this would have the potential to constitutionalise the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard in criminal proceedings.
832:
also only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt (as in criminal court).
752:
Examples of a police officer's truth-certainty standards in the field and their practical consequences are offered below:
3068:
1351:
2659:
1028:
2740:
2329:
656:
556:
in which the proof of non-existence of all affirmative defense(s) is not constitutionally required of the prosecution.
2921:
2232:
1867:
1695:
1569:
88:
508:
The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin
3078:
851:
1687:
Anticipative Criminal Investigation: Theory and Counterterrorism Practice in the Netherlands and the United States
1339:
739:
1024:
The civil standard is 'the balance of probabilities', often referred to in judgments as "more likely than not".
2184:
1465:
The Supreme Court discussed how courts should allocate the burden of proof (i.e., the burden of persuasion) in
1267:
901:
2217:
2132:
1549:
1321:
Failure to meet the burden: the issue will be decided as a matter of law. In this case, D is presumed innocent
1507:
1087:
State offences are not subject to the constitution's section 80 requirement for a jury. However, the case of
1940: (1998). The petitioner, Thomas M. Thompson, a convicted rapist/murderer, was executed on July 14, 1998.
1152:
Justices Deane, Dawson and Gaudron stated "Not every case involves issues of importance and gravity in the
531:. If the claimant fails to discharge the burden of proof to prove their case, the claim will be dismissed.
395:
360:
263:
927:
Clear and convincing evidence is the standard of proof used for immunity from prosecution under Florida's
2185:"House of Lords - In Re B (Children) (Fc) Appellate Committee Lord Hoffmann Lord Scott of Foscote Lord R"
1891:
1492:
1439:
1182:, has noted that for particularly serious allegations, such as sexual assault, "It's hard to see how the
813:
836:
480:
370:
66:
1259:
966:
829:
781:
273:
162:
2411:
3083:
2747:"The applicant broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement and is therefore a criminal."
2679:"Ben Roberts-Smith loses defamation case with judge saying newspapers established truth of murders"
2482:
2302:
2152:
2105:
1274:
825:
549:
528:
400:
70:
1724:
1277:, and is summed up with "innocent until proven guilty", but is not upheld in all legal systems or
2488:
2109:
1580:
Barron's Law Dictionary, pp. 55-56 (2nd ed. 1984); Black's Law Dictionary, p. 178 (5th ed. 1979).
1273:, "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies"). This principle is known as the
1145:
1113:
991:
948:
2609:
712:. In the civil context, this standard is often used where plaintiffs are seeking a prejudgement
2913:
2907:
2502:
An, R (on the application of) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors
2040:"Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied"
1502:
1407:
1395:
595:
355:
215:
177:
157:
62:
3031:
2634:
1426:; instead, the respondent could be required to prove to the court that the records were kept.
769:
probable cause of 51% truth or higher required that a crime was committed by a specific person
3073:
3011:
2992:
2970:
2878:
2444:"Briginshaw 'Standard of Proof' in Anti-Discrimination Law: 'Pointing with a Wavering Finger"
1934:
1615:
1285:
With respect to the critical facts of a case the defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever.
928:
728:
649:
473:
336:
326:
230:
200:
2443:
2769:
2710:"Ben Roberts-Smith: the murders and war crimes at the heart of a seismic defamation battle"
2476:
2274:
ask yourself whether the Crown has established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2101:
1725:"American Lamb Company v. United States: Application of the Reasonable Indication Standard"
1175:
821:
759:: a knowing and voluntary consent-based encounter between police officer and another person
624:
577:
311:
296:
239:
152:
147:
132:
2582:
1288:
The state must prove the critical facts of the case to the appropriate level of certainty.
8:
2587:
2286:
2215:
2018:
1423:
1218:
1213:
553:
516:
316:
2554:
2121:
1969:
1670:
3014:
2995:
2881:
2773:
2635:"G v H [1994] HCA 48; (1994) 181 CLR 387; (1994) 124 ALR 353 (19 October 1994)"
2069:
1937:
1648:
1618:
875:
745:
679:
509:
452:
301:
258:
220:
2973:
2917:
2228:
1861:
1789:
1691:
1565:
1311:
1164:
1014:
738:
that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found". The primary issue was whether
731:
652:
600:
560:
417:
380:
375:
321:
306:
205:
1001:
Another noncriminal instance in which proof beyond a reasonable doubt is applied is
2936:
1374:
Is the defendant required to prove something difficult or easily within his access?
1226:
1222:
960:
924:" cases), mental hygiene and involuntary hospitalizations, and many similar cases.
412:
390:
365:
291:
268:
248:
142:
2945:
2139:
2128:
1553:
1411:
1343:
1002:
897:
871:
673:
385:
253:
186:
172:
1391:
1217:
case has been made against the defendant or, second, when the defense mounts an
1093:
constrains the way that State courts may operate during criminal trials per the
835:
The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.
3093:
699:
635:
331:
225:
104:
1350:
In 2002, such practice in England and Wales was challenged as contrary to the
3062:
1775:
1262:
1168:
1041:
905:
880:
844:
817:
809:
640:
545:
520:
167:
137:
50:
548:, the party carrying the burden will succeed in its claim. For example, the
2714:
1387:
1278:
1251:
921:
917:
913:
893:
805:
713:
461:
447:
3053:
2153:"Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime - The Crown Prosecution Service"
2015:"Florida Stand Your Ground Law | Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense"
1452:
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries
2757:
1179:
854:. In at least one case, there is a statutory definition of the standard.
735:
1526:
The allegations were that the defendant was a murderer and war criminal.
1410:
cases, such as a dispute over a contract or a claim about an accidental
690:
stop. Most courts have agreed it is somewhere less than probable cause.
2595:
1419:
1255:
1201:
932:
709:
705:
629:
Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of proof to determine whether a
427:
406:
46:
1497:
524:
456:
127:
2610:"Qantas Airways Limited v Gama [2008] FCAFC 69 (2 May 2008)"
1369:
What must the prosecution prove to transfer burden to the defendant?
850:
Preponderance of the evidence is also the standard of proof used in
1842:"How much evidence is required? Managing Today's Federal Employees"
1790:"United States v. Melvin, 596 F.2d 492 | Casetext Search + Citator"
1190:
786:
437:
2216:
Nyman Gibson Miralis: Dennis Miralis & Phillip Gibson (2019).
1546:
828:
in civil or criminal court in the United States. In civil courts,
3054:
Complete text of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Cornell Univ.)
2785:
1315:
1307:
944:
909:
345:
282:
1121:
principle was articulated by Dixon in that case in these terms:
1207:
638:) would be required to justify a more thorough stop/search. In
763:
reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity required
2227:(13th ed.). London: Glg global legal group. p. 17.
1990:"Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes: Online Sunshine"
734: (1989), determined that probable cause requires "a fair
1379:
What threat to society is the provision designed to combat?
442:
1008:
1354:(ECHR), art.6(2) guaranteeing right to a fair trial. The
580:. Each party has the burden of proof of its allegations.
570:
559:
The burden of persuasion should not be confused with the
112:
1429:
1013:
In the three jurisdictions of the UK (Northern Ireland;
2766:
principle is much different to beyond reasonable doubt"
1892:"Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence"
2741:
Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited
2660:
Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited
1362:
A mere evidential burden did not contravene art. 6(2);
1133:
principle is sometimes incorrectly referred to as the
878:
in the United States. For example, a prisoner seeking
583:
2070:"Standard of Proof in Senate Impeachment Proceedings"
1949:
New York State Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.33 & 9.60.
771:: arrest and/or grand jury indictment of that person.
1206:
The "air of reality" is a standard of proof used in
2505:
EWCA Civ 1605 (21 December 2005). See: paragraph 32
1729:
Northwest Journal of International Law and Business
889:Court in all mental health civil commitment cases.
719:In the criminal context, the U.S. Supreme Court in
1840:
1564:Black's Law Dictionary, p 80 (2d pocket ed 1996);
1976:Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health
1880:In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970)
1232:
1061:
3060:
2589:
2473:Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd
2330:"Local Court Bench Book — Commonwealth Offences"
1191:Other standards for presenting cases or defenses
970:case, then the level of proof has not been met.
864:
799:
2707:
1390:on the accused. A typical example is that of a
1254:cases usually place the burden of proof on the
1035:Prior to the decision of the House of Lords in
808:determinations solely involving money, such as
519:. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor for
513:semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
1630:Barron's Law Dictionary, p. 56 (2nd ed. 1984).
1598:Black's Law Dictionary, p. 178 (5th ed. 1979).
1589:Barron's Law Dictionary, p. 55 (2nd ed. 1984).
1167:where, due to the gravity of the allegations,
2708:Visontay, Elias; Doherty, Ben (1 June 2023).
2663:(No 41) FCA 555, at paragraph (110); citing
1849:. Vol. 4, No. 3. LRP Publications. 2002-09-02
1683:
1163:principle applied in practice is the case of
481:
43:The examples and perspective in this article
2912:. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.
2665:Seymour v Australian Broadcasting Commission
2437:
2435:
2433:
1229:in the United States, though not identical.
2962:
2960:
2958:
2956:
2954:
2905:
2667:(1977) 19 NSWLR 219 per Mahoney JA (at 226)
2067:
599:(1985), in order to take away a prisoner's
3029:
2901:
2899:
2441:
954:
488:
474:
3032:"Human Rights and Legal Burdens of Proof"
2838:"Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1"
2572:
2430:
2383:"Protections from statutory encroachment"
2355:"Protections from statutory encroachment"
1473:§ 337, 412 (5th ed. 1999), which states:
775:
607:
89:Learn how and when to remove this message
27:Obligation on a party to prove their case
2984:
2982:
2951:
2909:Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials
2701:
1770:
1768:
1766:
1764:
1762:
1760:
1758:
1756:
1754:
666:
540:such as preponderance of the evidence).
2896:
2893:Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s.5(2)
2676:
2425:'misapprehended a limit on its powers'.
1958:Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979)
1684:Hirsch Ballin, Marianne (Mar 6, 2012).
1009:Standard of proof in the United Kingdom
990:, when conviction is based entirely on
892:This standard is used in many types of
618:
14:
3061:
2830:
2798:Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317
2334:Judicial Commission of New South Wales
1111:The case law that establishes this is
571:Standard of proof in the United States
500:In a legal dispute, one party has the
2979:
2743:(No 41) FCA 555, (at paragraph 11) |
2253:
2251:
2179:
2177:
1908:from the original on 18 December 2021
1835:
1833:
1831:
1751:
1430:Civil cases of the U.S. Supreme Court
1394:charge prosecuted under the Canadian
2809:"California Evidence Code, Sec. 662"
2756:
2745:Quote of imputation that was proven:
2535:
1225:. This is similar to the concept of
1069:
916:, petitions to remove a person from
29:
3036:Web Journal of Current Legal Issues
2670:
2547:
1722:
1352:European Convention on Human Rights
1338:However, in England and Wales, the
584:Legal standards for burden of proof
24:
2813:California Legislative Information
2750:
2652:
2466:
2248:
2174:
2072:. Congressional Research Service.
1889:
1828:
1739:from the original on 10 April 2017
1467:Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast
576:allegations and setting forth any
25:
3105:
3047:
2409:
1704:from the original on 29 June 2023
1195:
1102:
708:to determine whether to issue an
693:
2815:. California State Legislature.
2722:from the original on 1 June 2023
2689:from the original on 1 June 2023
2555:"Still unsure about Briginshaw?"
2303:"Commonwealth Criminal Offences"
1545:Transnational principle of law:
1032:example, that of self-defence).
852:United States administrative law
588:
34:
3023:
3001:
2930:
2887:
2864:
2855:
2844:from the original on 2015-09-23
2819:from the original on 2020-05-15
2801:
2792:
2734:
2627:
2602:
2508:
2494:
2448:Melbourne University Law Review
2416:Melbourne University Law Review
2403:
2375:
2347:
2322:
2295:
2279:
2209:
2195:from the original on 2017-09-22
2163:from the original on 2016-03-05
2145:
2115:
2091:
2076:from the original on 2019-04-23
2061:
2050:from the original on 2021-12-07
2032:
2007:
1996:from the original on 2021-05-22
1982:
1961:
1952:
1943:
1920:
1883:
1874:
1816:
1806:
1782:
1716:
1677:
1520:
1246:
740:Drug Enforcement Administration
3089:Legal doctrines and principles
1823:Miller v. Minister of Pensions
1655:
1633:
1624:
1601:
1592:
1583:
1574:
1558:
1539:
1268:ei incumbit probatio qui dicit
1233:Evidentiary standards of proof
1139:Qantas Airways Limited v. Gama
1062:Standard of proof in Australia
902:persons in need of supervision
841:Miller v. Minister of Pensions
13:
1:
1866:: CS1 maint: date and year (
1533:
1508:Shifting burden of persuasion
865:Clear and convincing evidence
800:Preponderance of the evidence
757:no level of evidence required
534:
2677:Doherty, Ben (1 June 2023).
2442:de Plevitz, Loretta (2003).
2259:"Onus and standard of proof"
1663:"Legal Dictionary - Law.com"
1641:"Legal Dictionary - Law.com"
1401:
1340:Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
578:affirmative facts in defense
396:Declaration against interest
264:Self-authenticating document
49:countries, particularly the
7:
2938:R v. DPP, ex parte Kebeline
1493:Philosophic burden of proof
1486:
1440:United States Supreme Court
1241:
814:Child Support Standards Act
65:, discuss the issue on the
10:
3110:
3069:American legal terminology
1386:In some cases, there is a
1199:
958:
697:
622:
2422:(2) – via Austlii.
2122:s.5 Road Traffic Act 1988
1690:. Springer. p. 525.
1436:Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1
967:aggravating circumstances
830:aggravating circumstances
782:Child Protective Services
274:Hague Evidence Convention
163:Eyewitness identification
53:, and do not represent a
18:Preponderance of evidence
1667:Law.com Legal Dictionary
1645:Law.com Legal Dictionary
1513:
1275:presumption of innocence
1154:Briginshaw v. Briginshaw
826:mitigating circumstances
721:United States v. Sokolow
550:presumption of innocence
401:Present sense impression
211:Public policy exclusions
3079:Probabilistic arguments
2579:Briginshaw v Briginshaw
1899:Department of Education
1114:Briginshaw v Briginshaw
992:circumstantial evidence
955:Beyond reasonable doubt
949:last will and testament
2288:Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.)
2218:"Chapter 4: Australia"
1979:, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).
1503:Rebuttable presumption
1480:
1137:standard of proof, in
1127:
1055:
776:Some credible evidence
608:Reasonable indications
596:Superintendent v. Hill
178:Consciousness of guilt
2477:[1992] HCA 66
2263:www.judcom.nsw.gov.au
2102:[1971] HCA 55
1970:Quinlan v. New Jersey
1890:Lhamon, Catherine E.
1608:Patterson v. New York
1475:
1471:McCormick on Evidence
1123:
1046:
929:stand-your-ground law
667:Reasonable to believe
327:Recorded recollection
2906:Herring, J. (2004).
2583:[193] HCA 34
2462:– via Austlii.
2307:Slades & Parsons
1927:Calderon v. Thompson
1460:burden of production
1456:burden of persuasion
1176:Melbourne Law School
822:affirmative defenses
625:Reasonable suspicion
619:Reasonable suspicion
554:affirmative defenses
361:in United States law
71:create a new article
63:improve this article
45:deal primarily with
3030:Cooper, S. (2003).
2871:Jackson v. Virginia
1299:Burden of proof: P
1219:affirmative defense
1058:of probabilities'.
1003:LPS conservatorship
517:affirmative defense
201:Laying a foundation
2944:2008-12-01 at the
2138:2017-02-24 at the
2127:2016-03-03 at the
1673:on August 3, 2020.
1552:2016-10-07 at the
1443:(3d ed. 1940). In
1258:(expressed in the
1159:An example of the
912:of both wills and
886:capital punishment
876:criminal procedure
746:Franks v. Delaware
680:New York v. Belton
457:trusts and estates
337:Dead Man's Statute
302:Direct examination
259:Best evidence rule
2772:). Archived from
2098:Green v The Queen
1723:Pak, Nam (1988).
1312:forensic evidence
1165:Ben Roberts-Smith
1070:Criminal standard
1015:England and Wales
896:cases, including
793:Valmonte v. Bane,
655: (1968), the
601:good conduct time
561:evidential burden
529:presumed innocent
498:
497:
418:Implied assertion
381:Dying declaration
376:Excited utterance
322:Proffer agreement
307:Cross-examination
120:Types of evidence
99:
98:
91:
73:, as appropriate.
16:(Redirected from
3101:
3043:
3018:
3005:
2999:
2986:
2977:
2964:
2949:
2934:
2928:
2927:
2903:
2894:
2891:
2885:
2868:
2862:
2859:
2853:
2852:
2850:
2849:
2834:
2828:
2827:
2825:
2824:
2805:
2799:
2796:
2790:
2789:
2783:
2781:
2760:(31 July 2022).
2754:
2748:
2738:
2732:
2731:
2729:
2727:
2705:
2699:
2698:
2696:
2694:
2674:
2668:
2656:
2650:
2649:
2647:
2645:
2631:
2625:
2624:
2622:
2620:
2606:
2600:
2598:
2591:
2576:
2570:
2569:
2567:
2566:
2551:
2545:
2539:
2533:
2532:
2527:
2526:
2512:
2506:
2498:
2492:
2486:
2470:
2464:
2463:
2461:
2459:
2439:
2428:
2427:
2407:
2401:
2400:
2394:
2393:
2379:
2373:
2372:
2366:
2365:
2351:
2345:
2344:
2342:
2340:
2326:
2320:
2319:
2314:
2313:
2299:
2293:
2292:
2283:
2277:
2276:
2270:
2269:
2255:
2246:
2245:
2243:
2241:
2222:
2213:
2207:
2206:
2201:
2200:
2181:
2172:
2171:
2169:
2168:
2149:
2143:
2119:
2113:
2095:
2089:
2088:
2082:
2081:
2068:Ripy, Thomas B.
2065:
2059:
2058:
2056:
2055:
2036:
2030:
2029:
2027:
2026:
2017:. Archived from
2011:
2005:
2004:
2002:
2001:
1986:
1980:
1965:
1959:
1956:
1950:
1947:
1941:
1924:
1918:
1917:
1915:
1913:
1907:
1896:
1887:
1881:
1878:
1872:
1871:
1865:
1857:
1855:
1854:
1844:
1837:
1826:
1820:
1814:
1810:
1804:
1803:
1801:
1800:
1786:
1780:
1772:
1749:
1748:
1746:
1744:
1720:
1714:
1713:
1711:
1709:
1681:
1675:
1674:
1669:. Archived from
1659:
1653:
1652:
1651:on May 20, 2020.
1647:. Archived from
1637:
1631:
1628:
1622:
1605:
1599:
1596:
1590:
1587:
1581:
1578:
1572:
1562:
1556:
1543:
1527:
1524:
1424:prove a negative
1227:Summary judgment
1223:insanity defense
961:Reasonable doubt
943:evidence use to
490:
483:
476:
413:Learned treatise
391:Ancient document
371:Business records
269:Ancient document
249:Chain of custody
101:
100:
94:
87:
83:
80:
74:
38:
37:
30:
21:
3109:
3108:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3100:
3099:
3098:
3084:Legal reasoning
3059:
3058:
3050:
3026:
3021:
3006:
3002:
2987:
2980:
2965:
2952:
2946:Wayback Machine
2935:
2931:
2924:
2904:
2897:
2892:
2888:
2869:
2865:
2860:
2856:
2847:
2845:
2836:
2835:
2831:
2822:
2820:
2807:
2806:
2802:
2797:
2793:
2779:
2777:
2776:on 31 July 2022
2755:
2751:
2739:
2735:
2725:
2723:
2706:
2702:
2692:
2690:
2675:
2671:
2657:
2653:
2643:
2641:
2633:
2632:
2628:
2618:
2616:
2608:
2607:
2603:
2586:
2577:
2573:
2564:
2562:
2553:
2552:
2548:
2540:
2536:
2524:
2522:
2514:
2513:
2509:
2499:
2495:
2480:
2471:
2467:
2457:
2455:
2440:
2431:
2408:
2404:
2391:
2389:
2381:
2380:
2376:
2363:
2361:
2353:
2352:
2348:
2338:
2336:
2328:
2327:
2323:
2311:
2309:
2301:
2300:
2296:
2285:
2284:
2280:
2267:
2265:
2257:
2256:
2249:
2239:
2237:
2235:
2220:
2214:
2210:
2198:
2196:
2183:
2182:
2175:
2166:
2164:
2151:
2150:
2146:
2140:Wayback Machine
2133:R. vs Sheldrake
2129:Wayback Machine
2120:
2116:
2096:
2092:
2079:
2077:
2066:
2062:
2053:
2051:
2044:Tampa Bay Times
2038:
2037:
2033:
2024:
2022:
2013:
2012:
2008:
1999:
1997:
1988:
1987:
1983:
1966:
1962:
1957:
1953:
1948:
1944:
1925:
1921:
1911:
1909:
1905:
1894:
1888:
1884:
1879:
1875:
1859:
1858:
1852:
1850:
1839:
1838:
1829:
1821:
1817:
1811:
1807:
1798:
1796:
1788:
1787:
1783:
1773:
1752:
1742:
1740:
1721:
1717:
1707:
1705:
1698:
1682:
1678:
1661:
1660:
1656:
1639:
1638:
1634:
1629:
1625:
1606:
1602:
1597:
1593:
1588:
1584:
1579:
1575:
1563:
1559:
1554:Wayback Machine
1544:
1540:
1536:
1531:
1530:
1525:
1521:
1516:
1489:
1432:
1404:
1344:drunk in charge
1270:, non qui negat
1249:
1244:
1235:
1204:
1198:
1193:
1105:
1072:
1064:
1029:drunk in charge
1011:
963:
957:
867:
802:
778:
702:
696:
674:Arizona v. Gant
669:
627:
621:
610:
591:
586:
573:
537:
502:burden of proof
494:
386:Party admission
254:Judicial notice
196:Burden of proof
138:Real (physical)
95:
84:
78:
75:
60:
39:
35:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
3107:
3097:
3096:
3091:
3086:
3081:
3076:
3071:
3057:
3056:
3049:
3048:External links
3046:
3045:
3044:
3025:
3022:
3020:
3019:
3000:
2978:
2950:
2929:
2922:
2895:
2886:
2863:
2854:
2829:
2800:
2791:
2749:
2733:
2700:
2669:
2651:
2626:
2601:
2571:
2559:McCabe Curwood
2546:
2534:
2520:www.bailii.org
2507:
2493:
2465:
2429:
2410:LACEY, WENDY.
2402:
2374:
2346:
2321:
2294:
2278:
2247:
2233:
2208:
2173:
2157:www.cps.gov.uk
2144:
2114:
2090:
2060:
2031:
2006:
1981:
1960:
1951:
1942:
1919:
1882:
1873:
1827:
1815:
1805:
1781:
1750:
1715:
1696:
1676:
1654:
1632:
1623:
1600:
1591:
1582:
1573:
1557:
1537:
1535:
1532:
1529:
1528:
1518:
1517:
1515:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1505:
1500:
1495:
1488:
1485:
1431:
1428:
1403:
1400:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1376:
1371:
1363:
1356:House of Lords
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1319:
1293:
1292:
1289:
1286:
1248:
1245:
1243:
1240:
1234:
1231:
1221:, such as the
1197:
1196:Air of reality
1194:
1192:
1189:
1104:
1103:Civil standard
1101:
1096:Kable Doctrine
1071:
1068:
1063:
1060:
1037:Re B (A Child)
1010:
1007:
959:Main article:
956:
953:
866:
863:
801:
798:
777:
774:
773:
772:
766:
760:
700:Probable cause
698:Main article:
695:
694:Probable cause
692:
668:
665:
636:probable cause
623:Main article:
620:
617:
609:
606:
590:
587:
585:
582:
572:
569:
536:
533:
521:criminal cases
496:
495:
493:
492:
485:
478:
470:
467:
466:
465:
464:
459:
450:
445:
440:
432:
431:
423:
422:
421:
420:
415:
410:
403:
398:
393:
388:
383:
378:
373:
368:
363:
358:
356:in English law
350:
349:
348:and exceptions
342:
341:
340:
339:
334:
332:Expert witness
329:
324:
319:
314:
309:
304:
299:
294:
286:
285:
279:
278:
277:
276:
271:
266:
261:
256:
251:
243:
242:
240:Authentication
236:
235:
234:
233:
228:
223:
218:
213:
208:
203:
198:
190:
189:
183:
182:
181:
180:
175:
170:
165:
160:
155:
150:
145:
140:
135:
130:
122:
121:
117:
116:
108:
107:
97:
96:
57:of the subject
55:worldwide view
42:
40:
33:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3106:
3095:
3092:
3090:
3087:
3085:
3082:
3080:
3077:
3075:
3072:
3070:
3067:
3066:
3064:
3055:
3052:
3051:
3041:
3037:
3033:
3028:
3027:
3016:
3013:
3009:
3004:
2997:
2994:
2990:
2985:
2983:
2975:
2972:
2968:
2963:
2961:
2959:
2957:
2955:
2947:
2943:
2940:
2939:
2933:
2925:
2923:0-19-876578-9
2919:
2915:
2911:
2910:
2902:
2900:
2890:
2883:
2880:
2876:
2872:
2867:
2858:
2843:
2839:
2833:
2818:
2814:
2810:
2804:
2795:
2787:
2775:
2771:
2767:
2765:
2759:
2758:Gans, Jeremy
2753:
2746:
2742:
2737:
2721:
2717:
2716:
2711:
2704:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2673:
2666:
2662:
2661:
2655:
2640:
2636:
2630:
2615:
2611:
2605:
2597:
2593:
2584:
2580:
2575:
2560:
2556:
2550:
2544:
2538:
2531:
2530:Paragraph 32.
2521:
2517:
2511:
2504:
2503:
2497:
2490:
2487:at p 449-50,
2484:
2478:
2474:
2469:
2453:
2449:
2445:
2438:
2436:
2434:
2426:
2421:
2417:
2413:
2406:
2399:
2388:
2384:
2378:
2371:
2360:
2356:
2350:
2335:
2331:
2325:
2318:
2308:
2304:
2298:
2290:
2289:
2282:
2275:
2264:
2260:
2254:
2252:
2236:
2234:9781839180088
2230:
2226:
2219:
2212:
2205:
2194:
2190:
2189:parliament.uk
2186:
2180:
2178:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2148:
2141:
2137:
2134:
2130:
2126:
2123:
2118:
2111:
2108:28 at p. 33,
2107:
2104:, (1971) 126
2103:
2099:
2094:
2087:
2075:
2071:
2064:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2035:
2021:on 2013-11-04
2020:
2016:
2010:
1995:
1991:
1985:
1978:
1977:
1972:
1971:
1964:
1955:
1946:
1939:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1923:
1904:
1900:
1893:
1886:
1877:
1869:
1863:
1848:
1843:
1836:
1834:
1832:
1824:
1819:
1809:
1795:
1791:
1785:
1778:
1777:
1776:Terry v. Ohio
1771:
1769:
1767:
1765:
1763:
1761:
1759:
1757:
1755:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1719:
1703:
1699:
1697:9789067048422
1693:
1689:
1688:
1680:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1658:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1636:
1627:
1620:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1604:
1595:
1586:
1577:
1571:
1570:0-314-25791-8
1567:
1561:
1555:
1551:
1548:
1547:Trans-Lex.org
1542:
1538:
1523:
1519:
1509:
1506:
1504:
1501:
1499:
1496:
1494:
1491:
1490:
1484:
1479:
1474:
1472:
1468:
1463:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1448:
1446:
1441:
1437:
1427:
1425:
1421:
1415:
1413:
1409:
1399:
1397:
1396:Criminal Code
1393:
1389:
1380:
1377:
1375:
1372:
1370:
1367:
1366:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1357:
1353:
1348:
1345:
1341:
1329:
1328:
1325:
1320:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1301:
1300:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1290:
1287:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1280:
1279:jurisdictions
1276:
1272:
1271:
1269:
1264:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1239:
1230:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1209:
1203:
1188:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1169:Fairfax Media
1166:
1162:
1157:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1142:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1126:
1122:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1109:
1100:
1099:
1097:
1092:
1091:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1067:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1045:
1043:
1042:Baroness Hale
1038:
1033:
1030:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1016:
1006:
1004:
999:
995:
993:
989:
985:
979:
975:
971:
968:
962:
952:
950:
946:
940:
936:
934:
930:
925:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
906:child custody
903:
899:
895:
890:
887:
883:
882:
881:habeas corpus
877:
873:
862:
859:
855:
853:
848:
846:
845:United States
842:
838:
833:
831:
827:
823:
819:
818:child custody
815:
811:
810:child support
807:
797:
794:
789:
788:
783:
770:
767:
764:
761:
758:
755:
754:
753:
750:
748:
747:
741:
737:
733:
730:
726:
722:
717:
715:
711:
707:
701:
691:
689:
684:
682:
681:
676:
675:
664:
660:
658:
657:Supreme Court
654:
651:
647:
643:
642:
641:Terry v. Ohio
637:
632:
626:
616:
613:
605:
602:
598:
597:
589:Some evidence
581:
579:
568:
564:
562:
557:
555:
551:
547:
546:trier of fact
541:
532:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
511:
506:
503:
491:
486:
484:
479:
477:
472:
471:
469:
468:
463:
460:
458:
454:
451:
449:
446:
444:
441:
439:
436:
435:
434:
433:
429:
425:
424:
419:
416:
414:
411:
409:
408:
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
392:
389:
387:
384:
382:
379:
377:
374:
372:
369:
367:
364:
362:
359:
357:
354:
353:
352:
351:
347:
344:
343:
338:
335:
333:
330:
328:
325:
323:
320:
318:
315:
313:
310:
308:
305:
303:
300:
298:
295:
293:
290:
289:
288:
287:
284:
281:
280:
275:
272:
270:
267:
265:
262:
260:
257:
255:
252:
250:
247:
246:
245:
244:
241:
238:
237:
232:
229:
227:
224:
222:
219:
217:
214:
212:
209:
207:
204:
202:
199:
197:
194:
193:
192:
191:
188:
185:
184:
179:
176:
174:
171:
169:
168:Genetic (DNA)
166:
164:
161:
159:
158:Demonstrative
156:
154:
151:
149:
146:
144:
141:
139:
136:
134:
131:
129:
126:
125:
124:
123:
119:
118:
114:
110:
109:
106:
103:
102:
93:
90:
82:
72:
68:
64:
58:
56:
52:
51:United States
48:
41:
32:
31:
19:
3074:Evidence law
3039:
3035:
3024:Bibliography
3003:
2937:
2932:
2908:
2889:
2884: (1979).
2870:
2866:
2857:
2846:. Retrieved
2832:
2821:. Retrieved
2812:
2803:
2794:
2784:– via
2778:. Retrieved
2774:the original
2763:
2752:
2744:
2736:
2724:. Retrieved
2715:The Guardian
2713:
2703:
2691:. Retrieved
2683:The Guardian
2682:
2672:
2664:
2658:
2654:
2642:. Retrieved
2638:
2629:
2617:. Retrieved
2613:
2604:
2578:
2574:
2563:. Retrieved
2561:. 2019-11-12
2558:
2549:
2537:
2529:
2523:. Retrieved
2519:
2510:
2501:
2496:
2472:
2468:
2456:. Retrieved
2451:
2447:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2405:
2396:
2390:. Retrieved
2386:
2377:
2368:
2362:. Retrieved
2358:
2349:
2337:. Retrieved
2333:
2324:
2316:
2310:. Retrieved
2306:
2297:
2287:
2281:
2272:
2266:. Retrieved
2262:
2238:. Retrieved
2224:
2211:
2203:
2197:. Retrieved
2188:
2165:. Retrieved
2156:
2147:
2117:
2112:(Australia).
2097:
2093:
2086:established.
2084:
2078:. Retrieved
2063:
2052:. Retrieved
2043:
2034:
2023:. Retrieved
2019:the original
2009:
1998:. Retrieved
1984:
1974:
1968:
1963:
1954:
1945:
1926:
1922:
1910:. Retrieved
1898:
1885:
1876:
1851:. Retrieved
1846:
1825:2 All ER 372
1822:
1818:
1808:
1797:. Retrieved
1794:casetext.com
1793:
1784:
1774:
1741:. Retrieved
1732:
1728:
1718:
1706:. Retrieved
1686:
1679:
1671:the original
1666:
1657:
1649:the original
1644:
1635:
1626:
1607:
1603:
1594:
1585:
1576:
1560:
1541:
1522:
1481:
1476:
1470:
1466:
1464:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1449:
1444:
1435:
1433:
1416:
1405:
1388:reverse onus
1385:
1378:
1373:
1368:
1349:
1337:
1294:
1266:
1265:
1250:
1247:Criminal law
1236:
1212:
1205:
1183:
1174:
1160:
1158:
1153:
1149:
1143:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1128:
1124:
1118:
1112:
1110:
1106:
1094:
1088:
1086:
1082:
1076:
1073:
1065:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1036:
1034:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1012:
1000:
996:
987:
983:
980:
976:
972:
964:
941:
937:
926:
922:right to die
918:life support
914:living wills
891:
884:relief from
879:
874:and certain
868:
860:
856:
849:
840:
837:Lord Denning
834:
806:family court
803:
792:
785:
779:
768:
762:
756:
751:
744:
720:
718:
706:grand juries
703:
687:
685:
678:
672:
670:
661:
639:
630:
628:
614:
611:
594:
592:
574:
565:
558:
542:
538:
512:
507:
501:
499:
462:Criminal law
405:
231:Similar fact
195:
111:Part of the
85:
79:October 2016
76:
44:
3017: (1994)
2998: (1973)
2976: (2005)
2370:attributes.
1621: (1977)
1478:persuasion.
1392:hit-and-run
1358:held that:
1214:prima facie
1180:Jeremy Gans
1172:criminal".
736:probability
366:Confessions
317:Impeachment
206:Materiality
153:Inculpatory
148:Exculpatory
133:Documentary
3063:Categories
2848:2015-01-22
2823:2020-01-21
2764:Briginshaw
2565:2020-09-19
2525:2023-07-05
2489:High Court
2392:2023-07-11
2364:2023-07-11
2312:2023-07-05
2268:2023-07-11
2199:2017-08-30
2167:2016-03-05
2110:High Court
2080:2019-02-10
2054:2013-07-29
2025:2013-07-29
2000:2021-05-22
1853:2023-09-30
1847:Nexis Uni®
1799:2024-09-01
1735:(1): 191.
1534:References
1458:, and the
1420:legal duty
1256:prosecutor
1202:R v Cinous
1200:See also:
1184:Briginshaw
1178:professor
1161:Briginshaw
1146:High Court
1135:Briginshaw
1131:Briginshaw
1119:Briginshaw
984:reasonable
933:indictment
812:under the
710:indictment
535:Definition
523:, and the
428:common law
407:Res gestae
292:Competence
216:Spoliation
47:common law
2594:at p 362
1912:4 January
1498:Probative
1408:civil law
1402:Civil law
898:paternity
816:, and in
525:defendant
297:Privilege
283:Witnesses
221:Character
187:Relevance
128:Testimony
67:talk page
2942:Archived
2842:Archived
2817:Archived
2720:Archived
2687:Archived
2193:Archived
2161:Archived
2136:Archived
2125:Archived
2074:Archived
2048:Archived
1994:Archived
1903:Archived
1862:cite web
1737:Archived
1702:Archived
1550:Archived
1487:See also
1252:Criminal
1242:Examples
1148:case of
787:ex parte
448:Property
438:Contract
312:Redirect
105:Evidence
61:You may
2948:UKHL 43
2786:Twitter
2644:12 July
2639:Austlii
2619:12 July
2614:Austlii
2596:Dixon J
2458:10 July
2240:12 July
1743:9 April
1708:5 April
1316:autopsy
1308:witness
1263:brocard
1144:In the
945:probate
910:probate
346:Hearsay
143:Digital
2920:
2780:1 July
2726:1 June
2693:1 June
2339:9 July
2231:
2131:; see
1973:, and
1694:
1568:
1438:, the
1412:injury
1318:report
1208:Canada
1150:G v. H
1077:a.k.a.
1049:lies.
1044:said:
908:, the
894:equity
714:remedy
426:Other
115:series
3094:Doubt
3010:
2991:
2969:
2914:58–64
2877:
2770:Tweet
2581:
2475:
2221:(PDF)
2100:
1967:See,
1933:
1906:(PDF)
1895:(PDF)
1614:
1514:Notes
1445:Keyes
1306:e.g.
1260:Latin
872:civil
839:, in
727:
688:Terry
648:
631:brief
510:maxim
453:Wills
430:areas
226:Habit
69:, or
3012:U.S.
2993:U.S.
2971:U.S.
2918:ISBN
2879:U.S.
2782:2023
2728:2023
2695:2023
2646:2023
2621:2023
2481:110
2460:2023
2387:ALRC
2359:ALRC
2341:2023
2242:2023
2229:ISBN
1935:U.S.
1914:2022
1868:link
1745:2017
1710:2017
1692:ISBN
1616:U.S.
1566:ISBN
1129:The
1090:Kirk
988:i.e.
729:U.S.
650:U.S.
593:Per
443:Tort
173:Lies
3015:267
3008:512
2996:189
2989:413
2967:546
2882:307
2875:443
2592:336
2590:CLR
2588:60
2485:445
2483:CLR
2454:(2)
2106:CLR
1938:538
1931:523
1619:197
1612:432
1450:In
1434:In
1406:In
824:or
725:490
671:In
646:392
527:is
113:law
3065::
3038:.
3034:.
2981:^
2974:49
2953:^
2916:.
2898:^
2873:,
2840:.
2811:.
2718:.
2712:.
2685:.
2681:.
2637:.
2612:.
2585:,
2557:.
2528:.
2518:.
2479:,
2452:27
2450:.
2446:.
2432:^
2420:34
2418:.
2414:.
2395:.
2385:.
2367:.
2357:.
2332:.
2315:.
2305:.
2271:.
2261:.
2250:^
2223:.
2202:.
2191:.
2187:.
2176:^
2159:.
2155:.
2083:.
2046:.
2042:.
1992:.
1929:,
1901:.
1897:.
1864:}}
1860:{{
1845:.
1830:^
1792:.
1753:^
1731:.
1727:.
1700:.
1665:.
1643:.
1610:,
1462:.
1314:,
1310:,
1005:.
951:.
947:a
935:.
920:("
904:,
900:,
723:,
716:.
644:,
455:,
3042:.
3040:3
2926:.
2851:.
2826:.
2788:.
2768:(
2730:.
2697:.
2648:.
2623:.
2599:.
2568:.
2491:.
2343:.
2244:.
2170:.
2142:)
2057:.
2028:.
2003:.
1916:.
1870:)
1856:.
1802:.
1747:.
1733:9
1712:.
1098:.
732:1
653:1
489:e
482:t
475:v
92:)
86:(
81:)
77:(
59:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.