In addition to legislation, case law is consulted to further clarify how the probability threshold is to be met. In NOM v. PPD in 2012, the Court of Appeal found that the civil standard of proof is codified in section 140 of the Evidence Act. The law also provides a framework for the court to decide whether the standard of proof was met after an assessment of probability, namely: These «necessary elements» change depending on the claim you are making. For example, in a personal injury claim, you must prove that the other party was responsible for your injury and prove the extent of the damages and other losses you suffered, all after weighing the odds. In criminal cases, any burden of proof for the defence must be proved only after weighing the probabilities. For example, it is a criminal offence if a person possesses an offensive weapon without lawful authorization or reasonable excuse, «the burden of proof is on him.» The defendant only needs to prove this after weighing the probabilities. What must be proven after weighing the odds should not simply be viewed as a 1-to-1 approach to the arguments presented to the Tribunal. It should be a holistic approach. A court should not simply weigh the case of Part A against the other case presented by Party B and decide which case is the most plausible. Probability weighting applies only to civil law issues.
You`ve probably heard of the most well-known standard of criminal proof: beyond a reasonable doubt. As it appears, this is a much higher standard of proof than the balance of probabilities. «. The disturbing truth is that as judges, we can never really know what happened: we weren`t there when what happened happened. We can only do our best after weighing the odds. (emphasis added) It is easier to provide evidence after weighing the odds than to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt about what must happen for you to be convicted of a crime. When courts decide whether a case is proved, they do so according to a standard that the party initiating the proceedings must meet. This is commonly referred to as the standard of proof.
All jurisdictions, including the courts, must apply the appropriate standard of proof in deciding whether a case has been proven. The overall objective is to convince the court to the extent necessary of the alleged case. In civil cases, the decision-maker must be satisfied that the case was proven after weighing the probabilities, whereas criminal cases require a higher standard of proof. It might also be useful to look at the balance in terms of actual probabilities. If two competing versions of events are considered equally likely, you might think they are equally balanced with a 50% probability each. But once a version is considered more likely, the scales will tip in its favor, with a 60% probability, meaning the competing version is only 40% likely. It is essential that sufficient evidence be presented to support the arguments put forward before the Tribunal. The court must be satisfied that, after weighing the probabilities, one case is more plausible than the other and that there is a basis for the case that is supported by the evidence before it. If there is enough argument and evidence, the threshold is more likely to be reached. To prove something after weighing the odds is to prove that it is «more likely than not.» So, going back to the example above, you`ll need to prove that it was «more likely than not» that you suffered your £1,000 loss of income to meet the required standard of proof.
From: Balancing the Odds in a Dictionary of Law Enforcement » The standard of proof in civil cases, which requires only any advice from Libra to decide who wins the case. (Compare the standard of proof in criminal cases where the prosecution must prove its case «beyond a doubt.») «It would take more convincing evidence to convince [a judge or court1] that the creature walking in Regent`s Park was more of a lioness than not, rather than being satisfied with the same standard of probability as it was Alsatian. On this basis, solid evidence is usually needed to convince a civil court that a person has defrauded or behaved in a reprehensible manner. But the question is always whether the court considers it more likely than not. In B (above), it was clarified that this does not imply a higher standard of proof, such as the criminal standard, or a higher standard of proof than the civil standard. It simply means that the inherent probabilities must be taken into account when evaluating the evidence after weighing the probabilities, for example the lioness versus an Alsatian dog walking in a park. What is most likely and what evidence is needed to analyse these probabilities. Evidence may be needed, but not by diluting the simple probability equilibrium test in a hybrid test. 15.
I would like to underline the words I have italicized. Lord Nicholls did not establish the rule of law. There is only one rule of law, namely that it must be shown that the occurrence of the event in question was more likely than not. Common sense, not law, requires that inherent probabilities be taken into account, if any, in deciding this issue. When a child alleges sexual abuse by a parent, it makes sense to start by assuming that most parents are not abusing their children. But this hypothesis can quickly be dispelled by other convincing evidence of the parent-child relationship or parent and other children. It would be absurd to assume that, in all cases, the court must presume that serious conduct is unlikely. In many cases, other evidence will show that this was too likely. For example, if it is clear that a child has been attacked by either person, it would make no sense to begin his argument by stating that attacking children is a serious matter and therefore neither of them probably did it. The fact is that one of them did, and the question for the court is simply whether it is more likely that one and not the other was the perpetrator. «The standard of probability means that a court is satisfied that an event occurred if it considers that the occurrence of the event was more likely than not because of the evidence.