When we talk about beyond reasonable doubt in criminal litigation, some people even lawyers do mistake it to mean that before a criminal suspect or an accused can be held guilty and convicted for the offense he or she is standing trial for, the prosecution must prove that the accused committed the crime beyond every atom or shadow of doubt. Well, this is the popular belief but this is not what the maxim “beyond reasonable doubt” portends in criminal jurisprudence.
Beyond reasonable doubt, as most of us have come to understand it means the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial other than that the accused committed the offense; once the evidence and facts are “reasonable” then there will be a conviction even if there are still some atoms of probabilities.
In the old case of Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL ER 372, Lord Denning, on the nature of proof beyond reasonable doubt, stated thus; “It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability”. This means that there must be 100% certainty or 100% proof that the accused committed the offense before there will be a conviction.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 14 (June 3 – Sept 2, 2024) begins registrations; get massive discounts with early registration here.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
This implies that beyond reasonable doubt in criminal litigation still applies the civil litigation principle of balance of preponderance or balance of probability but the difference is that in criminal litigation, the probability that the accused person committed that crime must be exponentially high and above the probability that he did not commit the offense.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond every shadow of doubt. There might still be doubt about whether or not the accused person committed the crime but the prosecution must be able to convince a reasonable person to believe by applying facts to reasons that the accused did actually commit the crime.
Lawyers are fond of using the rhythmic phrase “it must be visible to the blind and audible to the deaf” to explain what beyond reasonable doubt means, but that’s just some rhythmic nonsense. It does not have to be visible to the blind or audible to the deaf before a suspect will be held guilty of committing the crime. The word “reasonable” itself means that a common person on the street with common sense after seeing the facts must believe or be convinced that truly the suspect committed the offense.
Well, if you are a student of law or a lawyer, I’m sorry to poke a hole in your long-standing knowledge of the legal concept of reasonable doubt but one thing you should take out is that even if there is still some doubt whether or not the accused committed the crime, if that doubt is placed on a scale and the probability that he committed the crime outweighs the probability that he did not commit the crime then he will be convicted.