Au-delà de tout doute raisonnable

Ang

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2020. (Rev. # 2057)

n.b.: Cette page est expérimentale. Si vous repérez une grammaire ou un texte anglais clairement incorrect, veuillez m'en informer à [email protected] et je le corrigerai dès que possible.

• < Preuve

General Principles

The standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" (BARD) is a common law standard of proof in criminal matters. This standard is exclusively used in criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings. This includes not only adult criminal trials, but also young offender cases, adult sentencing, and certain provincial penal offences.

In all criminal trials the Crown must prove each and every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt.

The standard of "reasonable doubt" consists of a doubt based on reason and common sense which must be logically based upon the evidence or lack of evidence. It is not based on "sympathy or prejudice."

Purpose and Constitutional Foundation

The standard as the ultimate burden of proof is "inextricably intertwined with that principle fundamental to all criminal trials, the presumption of innocence." The burden should never shift to the accused.

The presumption of innocence and the criminal standard of proof are mandated given that the accused faces "grave social and personal consequences" arising from conviction.

Level of Certainty

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt "it does not involve proof to an absolute certainty; it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt."

However, belief that the accused is "probably guilty" is not sufficient and must acquit.

The burden of proof placed upon the Crown lies “much closer to absolute certainty than to a balance of probabilities.” The standard is more "than proof that the accused is probably guilty" in which case the judge must acquit.

To know something with "absolute certainty" is to "know something beyond the possibility of any doubt whatsoever." This is not a standard recognized in law.

Such as standard is "virtually impossible to prove" and "impossibly high" for the Crown to be held to such a standard.

Relationship to Evidence

“[A] reasonable doubt does not need to be based on the evidence; it may arise from an absence of evidence or a simple failure of the evidence to persuade the trier of fact to the requisite level of beyond reasonable doubt.”

The standard of BARD only applies to the evaluation of the evidence as a whole and not individual aspects of the evidence. The standard should be applied for the purpose of determining whether individual elements are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In cases where there is the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, the BARD burden is one that has been described as "heavy" and "hard to discharge." The reason for this is to ensure that "innocent people are never convicted."

Inferences and Conjecture

Reasonable doubt must come as a rational conclusion from the evidence available and not as a basis of conjecture.

Risk of Wrongful Conviction

A verdict of guilt must be considered carefully in order to protect the liberty of the accused and protect against a wrongful conviction.

Jury Instructions

The standard should not be articulated in a way that would likely cause the standard to be applied subjectively.

Assessing Evidence

When applying the BARD standard the judge must apply the same level of scrutiny to the Crown and defence evidence.

Consequence of Reasonable Doubt

The finding of reasonable doubt "is not the same as deciding in any positive way that [the allegations] never happened." It is simply a finding that the evidence is not of "sufficient clarity" to allow an acceptance of the essential facts to an "acceptable degree of certainty or comfort" sufficient to displace the presumption of innocence.

History

The origins of reasonable doubt go back to the English Common law in 1780. The standard arose from a shift away from a standard based on Christian beliefs whereby an improper conviction would result in the juror "pawning" their soul. A pamphlet circulated to jurors at the time stated, "the Juryman who finds any other person guilty, is liable to the Vengeance of God upon his Family and Trade, Body and Soul, in this world and that to come." This religious standard resulted in a wide-spread dread of false convictions. A more secular standard would allow jurors to convict without putting their souls at risk

Use of Illustrations in Articulating the Standard

Examples and illustrations are permissible in describing the standard of BARD as long as it does not takeaway the right to reach their own conclusions. However, the use of illustrations or examples in articulating the standard of BARD is "fraught with difficulty." The use of examples tends to lower the standard to that of a balance of probabilities and encourage a subjective standard.

By giving illustrations it risks creating the impression that the decision "can be made on the same basis as would any decision made in the course of their daily routines", which tends to move the standard closer to one of "probability." It also creates excessive subjectivity in interpretation, where consideration will vary based on each person's life experience.

Raising a Doubt

A reasonable doubt cannot be based on "speculation or conjecture."

The Crown has no burden to "negativing every conjecture to which circumstantial evidence might be consistent with the innocence of the accused."

"Bero" defence

The absence of evidence due to the police's failure to take investigative steps will sometimes be an important consideration in whether the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defence is permitted to elicit evidence from witnesses of potential inadequacies in the investigation. Oversights in an investigation "can be particularly important where no defence evidence is called."

See Also

• Jury Instructions