Dribbin & Brown is committed to helping you. We are available from 7AM-12AM Monday To Sunday. Call us for a Free Consultation
CONTACT US
  • Legal Services
    • appeal
      Appeals
      county-court
      Appeals to the County Court
      legal-aid-lawyers-icon.svg
      Error of law appeals
      victorial-court
      Appeal to the Court of Appeal
      rehearing
      Apply for Rehearing
      rspca-offences
      Dog Offences
      rspca-offences
      Animal Cruelty (RSPCA)
      rspca-offences
      Animal Control Orders
      assault-charges-icon.svg
      Assault Offences
      family-violence
      Family Violence
      manslaughter
      Manslaughter
      murder-trials
      Murder
      self-defense-icon
      Self Defence
      bail-application
      Bail Application Lawyers
      we-care.svg
      What is Bail
      county-supreme-court-procedure
      Bail Procedure
      intervention-orders-icon.svg
      Unacceptable Risk
      we-are-accredited.svg
      Show Compelling Reasons
      bail-application
      Exceptional Circumstances
      supreme-court
      Supreme Court Bail
      bail-application
      Breaching Bail
      we-care.svg
      Breaching a Bond
      county-supreme-court-procedure
      Breaching a CCO
      intervention-orders-icon.svg
      Breaching an IVO
      we-are-accredited.svg
      Breaching SORA
      firearm-offences
      Firearms
      weapons
      Weapons
      assets-consfication
      Asset Confiscation
      centrelink-fraud
      Centrelink fraud
      fraud-offences
      Fraud
      perjury-charges
      Pejury
      pervert-the-course-of-justice
      Pervert the Course of Justice
      theft
      Theft
      white-collar-crime
      White Collar Crime
      drink-driving-icon.svg
      Drink Driving
      drug-lawyers-icon.svg
      Drug Driving
      driving-offences
      Driving Offences (General)
      traffic-offences
      Traffic Offences
      infringement-warrants
      Infringement Warrants
      county-supreme-court-procedure
      Honest and Reasonable Mistake
      white-collar-crime
      Personal Safety Intervention Orders (PSIO)
      family-violence
      Family Violence Intervention Orders (FVIO)
      magistrates-court
      How to get an IVO
      victorial-court
      What can happen at Court?
      infringement-warrants
      Should I accept an IVO?
      sexual-assualt-icon.svg
      Sex Offender Registration Exemption
      sexual-assualt-icon.svg
      Failing to comply with Sex Offence Registration
      sexual-assualt-icon.svg
      What is digital penetration
      sexual-assualt-icon.svg
      Rape
      sexual-assualt-icon.svg
      Sexual Assault
      sexual-assualt-icon.svg
      Indecent Assault
      sexual-assualt-icon.svg
      Consent
      sexual-assualt-icon.svg
      All Sexual Offences
      sexual-assualt-icon.svg
      Meaning of Consent
      childrens-court
      Children’s Court
      computer-offences
      Cyber Crime
      drug-lawyers-icon.svg
      Drug Offences
      appeal
      Food Prosecution
      infringement-warrants
      Infringement Warrants
      royal-commisison
      Royal Commission
      rspca-offences
      Animal Cruelty
      appeal
      Appeal
      assault-charges-icon.svg
      Assault Offences
      assets-consfication
      Asset Confiscation
      bail-application
      Bail Applications
      breach-offences
      Breach Offences
      centrelink-fraud
      Centrelink Fraud
      childrens-court
      Childrens Court Charges
      computer-offences
      Computer Offences
      rspca-offences
      Dog Offences
      drink-driving-icon.svg
      Drink Driving
      drink-driving-icon.svg
      Driving Offences
      drug-lawyers-icon.svg
      Drug Driving
      drug-lawyers-icon.svg
      Drug Offences
      family-violence
      Family Violence
      firearm-offences
      Firearm Offences
      appeal
      Food Prosecutions
      fraud-offences
      Fraud
      infringement-warrants
      Infringment Warrants
      intervention-orders-icon.svg
      Intervention Orders
      manslaughter
      Manslaughter
      murder-trials
      Murder Trials
      perjury-charges
      Perjury
      pervert-the-course-of-justice
      Pervert The Course Of Justice
      royal-commisison
      Royal Commision
      sexual-assualt-icon.svg
      Sex Offences
      theft
      Theft
      traffic-offences
      Traffic Offences
      weapons
      Weapons
      white-collar-crime
      White Collar Crime
  • Our Lawyers
  • Criminal Defences
  • Case Studies
  • The System
  • Sentences
    • How to Avoid a Criminal Record?
    • Conviction and Non-Conviction
    • Spent Convictions Victoria
    • What is Diversion?
    • Apply for a Rehearing
    • Pleading Not Guilty in the Magistrates’ Court
    • What shows up on a police check?
    • Appeals
    • What happens to my fingerprints?
  • Locations
    • Melbourne
    • Frankston
    • Dandenong
    • Ringwood
    • Moorabbin
    • Geelong
    • Ballarat
    • Werribee
    • Broadmeadows
  • Contact
  • (03) 8644 7333
  • Legal Services
    • Appeals
      • Appeals
      • Appeals to the County Court
      • Error of law appeals
      • Appeal to the Court of Appeal
      • Apply for Rehearing
    • Animal Offences
      • Dog Offences
      • Animal Cruelty (RSPCA)
      • Animal Control Orders
    • Assault
      • Assault Offences
      • Family Violence
      • Manslaughter
      • Murder
      • Self Defence
    • Bail
      • Bail Application Lawyers
      • What is Bail
      • Bail Procedure
      • Unacceptable Risk
      • Show Compelling Reasons
      • Exceptional Circumstances
      • Supreme Court Bail
    • Breaching Court Orders
      • Breaching Bail
      • Breaching a Bond
      • Breaching a CCO
      • Breaching an IVO
      • Breaching SORA
    • Firearms & Weapons
      • Firearms
      • Weapons
    • Dishonesty & Property Offences
      • Asset Confiscation
      • Centrelink fraud
      • Fraud
      • Pejury
      • Pervert the Course of Justice
      • Theft
      • White Collar Crime
    • Driving Offences
      • Drink Driving
      • Drug Driving
      • Driving Offences (General)
      • Traffic Offences
      • Infringement Warrants
      • Honest and Reasonable Mistake
    • Intervention Orders
      • Personal Safety Intervention Orders (PSIO)
      • Family Violence Intervention Orders (FVIO)
      • How to get an IVO
      • What can happen at Court?
      • Should I accept an IVO?
    • Sex Offences
      • Sex Offender Registration Exemption
      • Failing to comply with Sex Offence Registration
      • What is digital penetration
      • Rape
      • Sexual Assault
      • Indecent Assault
      • Consent
      • All Sexual Offences
    • Other Offences
      • Children’s Court
      • Cyber Crime
      • Drug Offences
      • Food Prosecution
      • Infringement Warrants
      • Royal Commission
    • All
  • Our Lawyers
  • Criminal Defences
  • Case Studies
  • The System
  • Sentences
    • How to Avoid a Criminal Record?
    • Conviction and Non-Conviction
    • Spent Convictions Victoria
    • What is Diversion?
    • Rehearing
    • Apply for a Rehearing
    • Pleading Not Guilty in the Magistrates’ Court
    • Appeals
    • What shows up on a police check?
    • What happens to my fingerprints?
  • Blog
  • Locations
  • Contact
Home > Blog > Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Blog

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

  • December 5, 2023
  • Muhammad Awais
PrevPreviousPrivate Meeting deemed a Miscarriage of Justice
NextIs it illegal to grow tobacco in Australia?Next
Article Summary

What is Beyond Reasonable Doubt?

When a person is charged with a criminal offence, the prosecution bears the legal burden of proving ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the accused person is guilty. This is known as the criminal standard of proof and can be contrasted with the standard applied in civil cases (in which a plaintiff sues a defendant), which is on the ‘balance of probabilities’.

The high standard applied in criminal law is justified by the inherent imbalance in power between the state and the accused individual, as well as the serious consequences of a conviction, including imprisonment and other penalties. The prosecution’s responsibility to prove the elements of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt is essential to protect the rights of the accused, balance the interests of parties, ensure fairness and justice in criminal proceedings and uphold the integrity of the legal system.

Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt

The Presumption of Innocence

A person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty under the law (Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462; Howe v R (1980) 32 ALR 478). This rule is a fundamental principle and cornerstone of the criminal justice system, enshrined in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) s 25(1).

The defence is not required to prove the accused’s innocence; the accused is presumed innocent, and the prosecution must put arguments and adduce sufficient evidence that is sufficiently compelling to ‘tip the scales’ against the accused’s presumption of innocence in a criminal proceeding.

To discharge the legal burden of proof in criminal proceedings, the prosecution must adduce evidence that is admissible and credible. Such evidence may include testimonial evidence, physical evidence, documentary evidence or expert opinion. If the prosecution fails to meet the criminal standard of proof, the presumption of innocence is not rebutted, and the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

The Legal Burden of Proof

In a criminal trial, the requirement for the prosecution to prove the commission of an alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt is known as the burden of proof. Where legislation is silent as to who bears the burden of proof for an element of an offence, the law presumes that the onus of proof is on the prosecution (Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Ltd (1990) 170 CLR 249; Stingel v R (1990) 171 CLR 312).

This rule in criminal proceedings is stated by the House of Lords in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions (1935) AC 462, at p 481-2, namely that:

The persuasive onus lies on the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt to prove all elements of an offence and to disprove all defences properly raised on the evidence (that is, to disprove all defences in respect of which the defendant has discharged his evidentiary onus).

As their Lordships also explained in Woolminton, the general rule is subject to two exceptions: the defence of insanity and any statutory exceptions. Whilst these observations were made in the context of civil proceedings, their applicability in criminal law has been confirmed by the High Court in Director of Public Prosecutions v United Telecasters Sydney Ltd at [18].

Notably, proof on the balance of probabilities also applies in criminal cases in specific circumstances, such as when the onus of proof is shifted to the accused (Evidence Act 2008 s141(2)) and when determining the court’s jurisdiction (Thompson v R (1989) 169 CLR 1; Ahern v R (1988) 165 CLR 87).

The rules on the onus of proof in criminal proceedings set out in the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 141 are as follows:

  • If the onus is on the prosecution, the court is not to find the accused guilty unless it is satisfied that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt (s 141(1));

  • If the onus is on the accused, the court is to find the case of the accused satisfied if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities (s 141(2)).

This section codifies the common law position (for example, see Woolmington and Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521).

While the prosecution bears the burden of proving all elements to the criminal standard, the jury is not required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of every fact relied upon by the prosecution to prove an element or to disprove a defence, so long as they are satisfied that the accused’s guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt (Jury Directions Act 2015 s61; Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573 per Dawson J).

The evidence is required to be considered together at the end of the trial, and one piece of evidence may resolve the jury’s doubts about another (Chamberlain). Therefore, if, after considering the whole of the evidence, the jury holds a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case, they must acquit the accused (Woolmington).

beyond reasonable doubt
The presumption of innocence.

Onus of disproving any defences at issue

Unless otherwise indicated by statute, the prosecution also bears the burden of disproving any defence that arises as an issue in a trial (R v Youssef (1990) 59 A Crim R 1; Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645). This requirement arises if evidence or other material gives rise to that defence, and such a defence may arise from evidence or facts disclosed by either the defence or the prosecution.

Where a defence arises as an issue, where relevant, the prosecution must, therefore, prove that the accused’s offending conduct was not:

  • accidental;

  • involuntary;

  • a result of duress;

  • committed in self-defence (Crimes Act 1958 s322K);

  • committed as an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of facts which, if they had existed, would have been innocent (He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523).

Consistent with the requirement that the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must acquit the accused if the defence’s evidence gives rise to a reasonable doubt (De Silva v The Queen (2019) 94 ALJR 100, [11]; [2019] HCA 48).

For this reason, it is wrong to suggest to the jury that they are required to choose between the defence or the prosecution’s account. As the High Court noted in Murray v R (2002) 211 CLR 193, the issue for the jury is not whether it should accept the accused’s version but whether the prosecution has negatived it as a reasonable possibility.

What is reasonable doubt?

According to the High Court’s decision in Green v R [1971] HCA 55: “A reasonable doubt is a doubt which the particular jury entertain in the circumstances. Jurymen themselves set the standard of what is reasonable in the circumstances.” Furthermore, a reasonable doubt means a doubt that is held by the jury as a whole, as opposed to a doubt that an individual juror may hold. In Green v R at p 15, the High Court recognised:

“[j]urymen themselves set the standard of what is reasonable in the circumstances. It is that ability which is attributed to them which is one of the virtues of our mode of trial: to their task of deciding facts they bring to bear their experience and judgment. They are both unaccustomed and not required to submit their processes of mind to objective analysis of the kind proposed in the language of the judge in this case. ‘It is not their task to analyse their own mental processes’: Windeyer J, Thomas v The Queen. A reasonable doubt which a jury may entertain is not to be confined to a ‘rational doubt’, or a ‘doubt founded on reason’ in the analytical sense…”

In all criminal trials, the judge must give the jury directions that the prosecution bears the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt and that it is for the jury to determine whether this has been achieved (R v Neilan [1992] 1 VR 57). When explaining the term, the judge may:

  • refer to the presumption of innocence and the obligation of the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt (Jury Directions Act 2015 s64(1)(a));

  • indicate that it is not sufficient for the protection to persuade the jury that the accused is probably or very likely to be guilty (Jury Directions Act 2015 s64(1)(b));

  • indicate that it is almost impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty when reconstructing past events and that the prosecution does not have to do so (Jury Directions Act s64(1)(c));

  • indicate that the jury cannot be satisfied of the accused’s guilt if the jury has a reasonable doubt about whether the accused is guilty (Jury Directions Act 2015 s64(1)(d));

  • indicate that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or fanciful doubt or an unrealistic possibility (Jury Directions Act 2015 s64(1)(e)).

If a defence is identified by counsel as a matter in issue under the Jury Directions Act 2015 s11, the judge must direct the jury that the prosecution also bears the onus of disproving the defence beyond reasonable doubt under that section.

Circumstantial evidence

A more challenging area arising in consideration of the standard of proof applied in criminal proceedings is understanding the evidential burden applied in cases where the prosecution seeks to rely on the existence of circumstantial evidence to support an inference of guilt.

What is circumstantial evidence?

A fact in issue can be proved with either direct or circumstantial evidence. This distinction relates to the way in which the evidence is to be used, such that if the jury must infer a particular fact from evidence, it will be circumstantial evidence.

  • Direct evidence: Evidence that directly proves a fact is called direct evidence and which does not require the jury to draw any inferences.

  • Indirect or circumstantial evidence: Evidence of a related fact from which the jury can infer the existence of the fact (Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573).

The same evidence may, therefore, be direct and circumstantial depending on its use. For example, evidence given by a witness that they saw the accused holding a gun is direct evidence that the accused possessed a firearm and may also be used as circumstantial evidence that the accused killed someone with that gun.

Note that the term ‘direct evidence’ is also used to refer to testimonial evidence given by a witness of a matter for which they have personal knowledge (i.e. that they saw or heard).

Dawson J stated the generality of the requirement for the jury direction regarding circumstantial evidence in Shepherd (at 578), saying:

“The learned trial judge gave the customary direction that, where the jury relied upon circumstantial evidence, guilt should not only be a rational inference but should be the only rational inference that could be drawn from the circumstances: see Hodge’s Case (1838) 2 Lewin 227 (168 ER 1136); Peacock v. The King (1911) 13 CLR 619; Plomp v. The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234. Whilst a direction of that kind is customarily given in cases turning upon circumstantial evidence, it is no more than an amplification of the rule that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

Further to the above direction stated by Dawson J, it is usually necessary to give the following direction:

  • If, upon the whole of the evidence, there is any reasonable explanation which is consistent with the defendant’s innocence, the jury must find him or her not guilty (R v Hodge (1838) 2 Lewin 227; Mannella v R [2010] VSCA 357; Knight v R (1992) 175 CLR 495; Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; Barca v R (1975) 133 CLR 82; Plomp v R (1963) 110 CLR 234; Thomas v R (1960) 102 CLR 584).

Importantly, these directions arise from the general requirement that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in criminal matters and merely amplify the rule in cases of circumstantial evidence.

BLOG

Featured Articles

See All Articles

One Punch Law & the Coward Punch

A "coward punch", also known as a sucker punch, king hit, one punch attack or knockout punch, is an unprovoked unlawful strike to the head or neck of a victim, often knocking them unconscious and creating a risk of significant risk of death if they fit the ground.

Good Behaviour Bond 19B (Cth)

19B Good Behaviour or Dismissal (Cth)  Under section 19B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the Court may pursuant to section 19B(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), dismiss the charges or pursuant to section 19B(1)(d) without conviction, impose a bond, either with or without a surety, by recognizance or…

Can You Go to Jail for Drink Driving?

In Victoria, driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above the legal limit is a serious offence. Penalties for drink driving include licence disqualification, fines, a criminal record, and imprisonment in more severe cases. Drink driving offences are prosecuted under the Road Safety Act 1986.

Roadside Drug Testing

In Victoria, drivers can be charged for driving while impaired by any drug, including illicit, prescription and non-prescription drugs and medications.

Can You Be Charged If You Refuse a Saliva Sample?

In Victoria, you can be charged if you refuse a saliva sample for an oral fluid test under section 49(1)(eb) of the Road Safety Act 1986.

Are Steroids Illegal?

In Victoria, and across Australia, possessing or trafficking anabolic steroids is illegal without a prescription or legal authority.

Choose a Firm That Specialises in Criminal or Traffic Law for the Best Support With Your Case.

Need Help? Call our team 7am – 12 midnight (7 days a week)

Get In Touch
Talk To A Specialist
  • Law Institute Accredited Specialist Criminal Lawyers
  • Legal Aid enquiries welcome
  • 24/7 Availability
  • 7am - Midnight
  • (03) 8644 7333
  • Email Address
  • Book An Appointment

Helpful Links

  • About Us
  • Blog
  • What We Do
  • The System
  • Criminal Defences
  • Sentences
  • Criminal Lawyers Blog
  • Case Studies

Criminal Services

  • Bail Application
  • Domestic Violence Defence
  • Drink Driving Defence
  • Careless Driving Defence
  • Sexual Assault Defence
  • Speeding Fines Appeal

Office Locations

Melbourne
  • (03) 8644 7320
  • 4/271 William St

    Melbourne Vic 3000
Frankston
  • (03) 8644 7322
  • 8/395-399 Nepean Hwy

    Frankston VIC, 3199
Ballarat
  • (03) 8644 7310
  • Eureka House
11, Lydiard Street South Ballarat VIC, 3350
Dandenong 
  • (03) 8644 7315
  • 1a/147 Foster
    St
Dandenong, VIC, 3175
Moorabbin
  • (03) 8644 7328
  • Level 1, 441 South Rd
    
Moorabbin, Vic, 3189
Geelong 
  • (03) 8644 7300
  • 2/13 Fenwick Street
    
Geelong Vic 3220
Ringwood 
  • (03) 8644 7325
  • 7/2 Nelson St
Ringwood VIC 3134
Werribee
  • (03) 9116 9595
  • 9/7 Bridge Street
Werribee VIC 3030
Broadmeadows
  • (03) 9116 9500
  • StartNorth at Townhall12 Dimboola Rd
Broadmeadows VIC 3047

© Copyright 2025 Dribbin & Brown Criminal Law | Contact Us | Privacy | Disclaimer

Find Location Find Location Make Appointment Make Appointment

Search