Courts and our Legal System

In our legal system, courts (and in some situations juries) are responsible for deciding what happened in the case at hand. This is true whether someone is charged with a crime or is being sued for damages. To understand what happened, evidence must be presented to the court.

Evidence
In a civil case the plaintiff presents the evidence to support their case. The defendant then has a chance to present evidence that shows the plaintiff’s claim is unfounded. In criminal cases the Prosecutor or the Crown Counsel presents the case against the accused. The accused then has the chance to show that the prosecution did not prove their case.

There are rules concerning what evidence is acceptable in court and only evidence that follows these rules may be presented. In general the evidence has to be relevant to the case before the court will hear it. Types of evidence which are considered unreliable will not generally be allowed. For example, hearsay evidence is not generally allowed. Hearsay evidence is secondhand evidence. For example if a person is testifying about what someone else said this may be considered hearsay.

Burden of Proof
After hearing the evidence the court makes findings about the facts of the case. It is common for a court to hear conflicting versions of what happened. There are rules that form the basis for a court determining the facts of the case. These are different for civil and criminal cases.

In civil cases the plaintiff must prove their case on what is called a balance of probabilities. This means that they must satisfy the court that it is more likely than not that their version of what happened is true.

A person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until they plead guilty or are proven guilty in court. The Crown Prosecutor must prove that the accused person is guilty. The accused person does not have to establish or show that they are innocent.

In order to convict an accused person the Crown Prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person committed the criminal offence they are charged with. The court cannot find the person guilty if they have a reasonable doubt about the accused person’s guilt. They have a reasonable doubt if, after considering all the evidence, they are unsure whether the accused person committed the offence. To convict, the court must believe that the only sensible explanation, considering all the evidence, is that the accused person committed the crime.

To Consider

1. Hearsay, or second-hand information such as what somebody overheard somebody else say, is generally not allowed as evidence. Why is it important that only first-hand information be considered as evidence?
   
   
2. In a criminal case, the Crown must establish that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, the plaintiff only needs to prove their case through the balance of probabilities, meaning it is more likely than not that their version of what happened is true. Why do you think the standard of proof required for rendering a verdict is much higher in a criminal case than in a civil case?