What Does “Beyond A Reasonable Doubt” Mean?

The presumption of innocence is an essential guarantee for individuals facing criminal proceedings. It is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as deeply enshrined in Australian criminal law.



In criminal law, it is solely up to the prosecution in to prove a charge. Furthermore, an individual cannot be found guilty of an offence until the offence (and each of the elements of it) have been proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The essence of this means that the prosecution must convince the court that there is no logical explanation for the events related to the crime other than that the accused has acted in a way which makes out the offence.

Criminal matters have a higher standard of proof than civil cases. This is because the stakes are higher in criminal proceedings; a guilty verdict results in deprivation of freedom by the state. Therefore, it is fundamental to remember that the reason that the standard of proof that the prosecution must prove is high so that individuals are not arbitrarily deprived of their freedom.



Note that ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ does not mean that the prosecution must eliminate all possible uncertainty about a person’s innocence. It is near impossible in most situations. The question is whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 141 of the Evidence Act 2011 states that the court must not find the case of the prosecution proved unless it is satisfied that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, Subsection 141(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 provides that in a criminal proceeding, the court must find the case of a defendant proved if it is satisfied that the case has been proved on the balance of probabilities.

This means that if the accused person’s criminal defence team raises through the evidence a defence which is established on, in effect, a more likely than not basis, the accused person must be found not guilty.

A skilful criminal defence lawyer remembers who bears the burden of proof in a criminal case and focuses on pointing out the instances of reasonable doubt in the arguments of the prosecution. The defendant does not need to prove that they did not commit the crime. The prosecution needs to prove that they did.



In the end, in many Supreme Court trials, the jury the one to decide whether an accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a whole other story in itself—people have set worldviews coming into the courtroom, and ‘reasonable doubt’ for one person might not be for another.

The Australian criminal justice system maintains that it is better to let go of a blameworthy person than imprison someone innocent. On the one hand, it is a high standard to maintain; it increases the likelihood that someone guilty of an offence might walk free. On the other hand, it makes it harder for innocent people to get wrongful convictions.

Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is inherently subjective. A person might be acquitted despite the prosecution having compelling evidence that leads people to believe that he is to blame. 



Conversely, a guilty verdict may be handed down in circumstances when there should, on the evidence, have been a reasonable doubt. This finding may be appealed to a higher court, which may review the decision and the evidence to determine if the decision delivered was correct.

The presumption of innocence and burden of proof on the prosecution are hallmarks of a liberal society built on equality. Though the justice system is not perfect, having checks and balances like these ensure that a person accused of wrongdoing gets their fair day in court.

Get expert legal advice in the ACT from Andrew Byrnes Law Group. We are Canberra criminal defence lawyers committed to high-quality, fearless legal representation to all our clients. Get in touch with us today and see why we are the right lawyers to fight for you.