When a court finds facts in a criminal case, what must the finding rest on, and what extra measure of proof must be reached before the charged crime is found proven?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In a practice file we read the judgment's account of which evidence was relied on for each fact it found, and the proof the prosecution presented on each element of the charged offence, since one finding concerns any fact while the other concerns the crime itself.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading holds that the provision sets two separate requirements: every fact the court admits must rest on evidence, as 'the finding of fact shall be by evidence', and on top of that the finding of the criminal facts must reach 'proof beyond reasonable doubt', so a fact may be admitted on evidence while the crime is not yet proven.
Another reading stresses that the two sentences reach different objects: the first covers every fact the court finds, while the doubt standard is written only for the 'finding of criminal facts', so the provision does not state how much proof intermediate or background facts must carry.
Your judgment
Once the court's reasoning is read against the evidence cited in it, which disputed fact still rests on an inference rather than on the evidence, and does that leave room for reasonable doubt?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We revisit this card if the provision is amended to change either requirement, or if a court decision explains how far the doubt standard reaches beyond the elements of the charged crime to other facts in the case.