[
Reasonable doubt in sexual assault trials
As the defence starts its closing arguments, here’s a quick primer on the concept of “reasonable doubt.”
“Reasonable doubt is an important principle in the criminal justice system generally,” says Lisa Dufraimont, a professor at Toronto’s Osgoode Hall Law School who isn’t involved in the world junior hockey case.
“An accused person is presumed to be innocent and then it’s up to the Crown, the prosecutor, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty, that they’ve committed all the elements of the offence,” adds Dufraimont.
“What that really means is that if there is a plausible view, a reasonable story that could be accepted from the evidence that the person isn’t guilty, then they’ll be acquitted.”
Dufraimont says it is a difficult standard for the Crown to meet in any criminal case.
“In sexual assault cases,” she says, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt is particularly challenging because we often have issues of consent.”
That often means the judge has to consider a number of factors when trying to determine whether or not the complainant consented.
“We have to look at what the complainant said and did at the time. There may be credibility issues about the complainants’ claims, there may be credibility issues about other witnesses or the accused person who were there in the room on the issue of consent, so it’s a really difficult issue to navigate in terms of proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” she said.
A judge, Dufraimont says, has to look at the direct and circumstantial evidence that weighs in both directions and determine if it meets the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. She can also choose to accept some, none or all of a witness’s testimony.
“It’s easier said than done,” she said. “At the end of the day, it’s for the Crown to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the judge does not know whom to believe, the accused persons will be acquitted.”