• [12] The “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, used by criminal juries in the United States to determine guilt for a crime, also contrasts with probable cause which courts hold
  requires an unquantified level of proof well above that of probable cause’s 51%.

• Everyone must feel that, when, for instance, the issue is on which of two dates an admitted occurrence took place, a satisfactory conclusion may be reached on materials of
  a kind that would not satisfy any sound and prudent judgment if the question was whether some act had been done involving grave moral delinquency The Briginshaw principle is sometimes incorrectly referred to as the Briginshaw standard of proof,[38]
  in Qantas Airways Limited v. Gama Justices French and Jacobson stated the “Briginshaw test does not create any third standard of proof between the civil and the criminal.

• Some courts and scholars have suggested probable cause could, in some circumstances, allow for a fact to be established as true to a standard of less than 51%[citation needed],
  but as of August 2019, the United States Supreme Court has never ruled that the quantification of probable cause is anything less than 51%.

• However, where the law does not stipulate a reverse burden of proof, the defendant need only raise the issue and it is then for the prosecution to negate the defence to the
  criminal standard in the usual way (for example, that of self-defence[28]).

• [47][Note 1] In the end, despite the high burden of proof required, Fairfax won the trial, with Besanko ruling that it was proven he “broke the moral and legal rules of military
  engagement and is therefore a criminal”.

• In this case, D is presumed innocent o Burden of persuasion: if at the close of evidence, the jury cannot decide if P has established with relevant level of certainty that
  D had committed murder, the jury must find D not guilty of the crime of murder  Measure of proof: P has to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, but not necessarily prove every single fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Legal standards for burden of proof[edit] Some evidence[edit] Per Superintendent v. Hill (1985), in order to take away a prisoner’s good conduct time for a disciplinary violation,
  prison officials need only have “some evidence”, i.e., “a modicum of evidence”; however, the sentencing judge is under no obligation to adhere to good/work time constraints, nor are they required to credit time served.

• Definition A “burden of proof” is a party’s duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge, and includes the burden of production (providing enough evidence on an issue so that
  the trier-of-fact decides it rather than in a peremptory ruling like a directed verdict) and the burden of persuasion (standard of proof such as preponderance of the evidence).

• Beyond reasonable doubt[edit] Main article: Reasonable doubt This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies
  in juvenile delinquency proceedings, criminal proceedings, and when considering aggravating circumstances in criminal proceedings.

• [citation needed] Though it is beyond the scope of this topic, when courts review whether 51% probable cause certainty was a reasonable judgment, the legal inquiry is different
  for police officers in the field than it would be for grand jurors.

• Standard of proof in the United States Burden of proof refers most generally to the obligation of a party to prove its allegations at trial.

• If it did so, this would have the potential to constitutionalise the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in criminal proceedings.

• [46] An example of the Briginshaw principle applied in practice is the case of Ben Roberts-Smith where, due to the gravity of the allegations, Fairfax Media was required to
  rely on stronger proof than in the context of a normal allegation to win their case.

• [55] • The state must prove the critical facts of the case to the appropriate level of certainty.

• If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level
  of proof has not been met.

• It is also the standard of proof by which the defendant must prove affirmative defenses or mitigating circumstances in civil or criminal court in the United States.

• The civil standard is also used in criminal trials in relation to those defenses which must be proven by the defendant (for example, the statutory defense to drunk in charge
  that there was no likelihood of the accused driving while still over the alcohol limit[27]).

• Another high-level way of interpreting that is that the plaintiff’s case (evidence) be 51% likely.

• [16] Compared to the criminal standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” the preponderance of the evidence standard is “a somewhat easier standard to meet.”[15] Preponderance
  of the evidence is also the standard of proof used in United States administrative law.

• The main reason that this high level of proof is demanded in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant’s liberty or even in their
  death.

• Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that one would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important
  of one’s own affairs.

• The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution requires enough evidence to justify a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not and the trier of
  fact must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality.

• For example, the presumption of innocence in a criminal case places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offense (generally beyond a reasonable
  doubt), and to disprove all the defenses except for affirmative defenses in which the proof of non-existence of all affirmative defense(s) is not constitutionally required of the prosecution.

• It is on the order of the factual standard of proof needed to achieve a finding of “probable cause” used in ex parte threshold determinations needed before a court will issue
  a search warrant.

• [53] Examples Criminal law[edit] Criminal cases usually place the burden of proof on the prosecutor (expressed in the Latin , “the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not
  on who denies”).

• MSPB defines the standard as “The degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested
  fact is more likely to be true than untrue.” One author highlights the phrase “more likely to be true than untrue” as the critical component of the definition.

• [13] Examples of a police officer’s truth-certainty standards in the field and their practical consequences are offered below: • no level of evidence required: a knowing and
  voluntary consent-based encounter between police officer and another person • reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity required: an involuntary stop initiated by the officer to briefly detain, attempt to question, and pat down
  outer clothing of a person of interest to police.

• [citation needed] Preponderance of the evidence[edit] Preponderance of the evidence (American English), also known as balance of probabilities (British English), is the standard
  required in civil cases, including family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act, and in child custody determinations between parties having equal legal rights respecting a
  child.

• The task for the tribunal then when faced with serious allegations is to recognize that their seriousness generally means they are inherently unlikely, such that to be satisfied
  that a fact is more likely than not the evidence must be of a good quality.

• The standard does not require the fact-finder to weigh conflicting evidence, and merely requires the investigator or prosecutor to present the bare minimum of material credible
  evidence to support the allegations against the subject, or in support of the allegation; see Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992 (2nd Cir.

• This standard is also known as “clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence”; “clear, cognizant, and convincing evidence”, and is applied in cases or situations involving
  an equitable remedy or where a presumptive civil liberty interest exists.

• 6(2) so long as confined within reasonable limits, considering the questions: o What must the prosecution prove to transfer burden to the defendant?

• Clear and convincing evidence is the standard of proof used for immunity from prosecution under Florida’s controversial stand-your-ground law.

• A more precise statement is that “the weight [of the evidence, including in calculating such a percentage] is determined not by the amount of evidence, but by its quality.”[15]
  The author goes on to affirm that preponderance is “merely enough to tip the scales” towards one party; however, that tilt need only be so slight as the weight of a “feather.” Until 1970, it was also the standard used in juvenile court in
  the United States.

• [12] The important point is that officers cannot deprive a citizen of liberty unless the officer can point to specific facts and circumstances and inferences therefrom that
  would amount to a reasonable suspicion.

• [9] Reasonable indications[edit] “Reasonable indication (also known as reasonable suspicion) is substantially lower than probable cause; factors to consider are those facts
  and circumstances a prudent investigator would consider, but must include facts or circumstances indicating a past, current, or impending violation; an objective factual basis must be present, a mere ‘hunch’ is insufficient.

• In civil courts, aggravating circumstances also only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt (as in criminal court).

• [38] In Australia, the ‘balance of probabilities’ involves considerations that the evidence required to establish a fact at the civil standard will vary with the seriousness
  of what is being alleged.

• Probable cause[edit] Main article: Probable cause Probable cause is a higher standard of proof than reasonable suspicion, which is used in the United States to determine whether
  a search, or an arrest, is unreasonable.

• The standard that must be met by the prosecution’s evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant
  committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty.

• Probable cause can be contrasted with “reasonable articulable suspicion” which requires a police officer to have an unquantified amount of certainty the courts say is well
  below 51% before briefly detaining a suspect (without consent) to pat them down and attempt to question them.

• However, when exceptions arise and the burden of proof has been shifted to the defendant, they are required to establish a defense that bears an “air of reality”.

• The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.

• [31] The Australian constitution does not expressly provide that criminal trials must be ‘fair’, nor does it set out the elements of a fair trial, but it may by implication
  protect other attributes.

• The criminal standard was formerly described as “beyond reasonable doubt”.

• [11] Reasonable suspicion[edit] Main article: Reasonable suspicion Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of proof to determine whether a brief investigative stop or search
  by a police officer or any government agent is warranted.

• As the above description of the American system shows, anxiety by judges about making decisions on very serious matters on the basis of the balance of probabilities had led
  to a departure from the common law principles of just two standards.

• However, the case of Kirk constrains the way that State courts may operate during criminal trials per the Kable Doctrine.

• In the criminal context, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989), determined that probable cause requires “a fair probability that contraband
  or evidence of a crime will be found”.

• [12] If the investigation confirms the officer’s initial suspicion or reveals evidence that would justify continued detention the officer may require the person detained to
  remain at the scene until further investigation is complete, and may give rise to the level of probable cause.

• That standard remains, and the words commonly used, though the Judicial Studies Board guidance is that juries might be assisted by being told that to convict they must be
  persuaded “so that you are sure”.

• [54] The presumption of innocence means three things: • With respect to the critical facts of a case the defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever.

• If the subject threshold level of reliability has been met by the presentation of the evidence, then the thing is considered legally proved for that trial, hearing or inquest.

• [48][49][50] Melbourne Law School professor Jeremy Gans, has noted that for particularly serious allegations, such as sexual assault, “It’s hard to see how the Briginshaw
  principle is much different to beyond reasonable doubt”.

• The “some credible evidence” standard is used as a legal placeholder to bring some controversy before a trier of fact, and into a legal process.

• • probable cause of 51% truth or higher required that a crime was committed by a specific person: arrest and/or grand jury indictment of that person.

• [12] The officer must be prepared to establish that criminal activity was a logical explanation for what they perceived.

• The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding
  are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal.

• Juries are required to make findings of guilt ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ for criminal matters.

• [57] The prosecution has the legal burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant exceeded the legal limit of alcohol and was in control of a motor vehicle.

• [citation needed] Criminal standard[edit] The criminal standard in Australia is, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

• Some courts have said it should be a new standard while others have equated it with the “reasonable suspicion” of the Terry stop.

• A more definite standard of proof (often probable cause) would be required to justify a more thorough stop/search.

• “[10] The reasonable indication standard is used in interpreting trade law in determining if the United States has been materially injured.

• Prior to the decision of the House of Lords in Re B (A Child) [2008] UKHL 35 there had been some confusion – even at the Court of Appeal – as to whether there was some intermediate
  standard, described as the ‘heightened standard’.

• [6] The burden of persuasion should not be confused with the evidential burden, or burden of production, or duty of producing (or going forward with evidence)[7] which is
  an obligation that may shift between parties over the course of the hearing or trial.

• [56] If the judge finds there is not enough evidence under the standard, the case must be dismissed (or a subsequent guilty verdict must be vacated and the charges dismissed).

• [43] The Briginshaw principle was articulated by Dixon in that case in these terms:[44] …it is enough that the affirmative of an allegation is made out to the reasonable
  satisfaction of the tribunal.

• Courts have traditionally interpreted the idea of “a fair probability” as meaning whether a fair-minded evaluator would have reason to find it more likely than not that a
  fact (or ultimate fact) is true, which is quantified as a 51% certainty standard (using whole numbers as the increment of measurement).

• [38] Other standards for presenting cases or defenses Air of reality[edit] See also: R v Cinous The “air of reality” is a standard of proof used in Canada to determine whether
  a criminal defense may be used.

• It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused’s guilt, but only that no reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

 

Works Cited

[‘1. The allegations were that the defendant was a murderer and war criminal.
2. Transnational principle of law: Trans-Lex.org Archived 2016-10-07 at the Wayback Machine
3. ^ Black’s Law Dictionary, p 80 (2d pocket ed 1996); ISBN 0-314-25791-8
4. ^
Barron’s Law Dictionary, pp. 55-56 (2nd ed. 1984); Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 178 (5th ed. 1979).
5. ^ Barron’s Law Dictionary, p. 55 (2nd ed. 1984).
6. ^ Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 178 (5th ed. 1979).
7. ^ Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S.
197 (1977)
8. ^ Barron’s Law Dictionary, p. 56 (2nd ed. 1984).
9. ^ “Legal Dictionary – Law.com”. Law.com Legal Dictionary. Archived from the original on May 20, 2020.
10. ^ “Legal Dictionary – Law.com”. Law.com Legal Dictionary. Archived from
the original on August 3, 2020.
11. ^ Hirsch Ballin, Marianne (Mar 6, 2012). Anticipative Criminal Investigation: Theory and Counterterrorism Practice in the Netherlands and the United States. Springer. p. 525. ISBN 9789067048422. Archived from
the original on 29 June 2023. Retrieved 5 April 2017.
12. ^ Pak, Nam (1988). “American Lamb Company v. United States: Application of the Reasonable Indication Standard”. Northwest Journal of International Law and Business. 9 (1): 191. Archived from
the original on 10 April 2017. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
13. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i Terry v. Ohio, 392 US at 27 [1968] “the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or
that of others was in danger.”
14. ^ Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154,155-156; 438 U.S. 164-172 (1978). “Where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for
the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that a hearing be held
at the defendant’s request. The trial court here therefore erred in refusing to examine the adequacy of petitioner’s proffer of misrepresentation in the warrant affidavit.”
15. ^ Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
16. ^ Jump
up to:a b c “How much evidence is required? Managing Today’s Federal Employees”. Nexis Uni®. Vol. 4, No. 3. LRP Publications. 2002-09-02. Retrieved 2023-09-30.
17. ^ In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970)
18. ^ Lhamon, Catherine E.
“Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence” (PDF). Department of Education. Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 December 2021. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
19. ^ Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998). The petitioner, Thomas M. Thompson,
a convicted rapist/murderer, was executed on July 14, 1998.
20. ^ New York State Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.33 & 9.60.
21. ^ Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979)
22. ^ See, Quinlan v. New Jersey, and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of
Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).
23. ^ “Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes: Online Sunshine”. Archived from the original on 2021-05-22. Retrieved 2021-05-22.
24. ^ “Florida Stand Your Ground Law | Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense”. Archived
from the original on 2013-11-04. Retrieved 2013-07-29.
25. ^ “Florida ‘stand your ground’ law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied”. Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2021-12-07. Retrieved 2013-07-29.
26. ^
Ripy, Thomas B. “Standard of Proof in Senate Impeachment Proceedings”. Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original on 2019-04-23. Retrieved 2019-02-10. Clear and convincing evidence is typically defined as that measure or degree of
proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegation sought to be established.
27. ^ Green v The Queen [1971] HCA 55, (1971) 126 CLR 28 at p. 33, High Court (Australia).
28. ^ s.5 Road Traffic
Act 1988 Archived 2016-03-03 at the Wayback Machine; see R. vs Sheldrake Archived 2017-02-24 at the Wayback Machine)
29. ^ “Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime – The Crown Prosecution Service”. www.cps.gov.uk. Archived from the original on
2016-03-05. Retrieved 2016-03-05.
30. ^ Jump up to:a b “House of Lords – In Re B (Children) (Fc) Appellate Committee Lord Hoffmann Lord Scott of Foscote Lord R”. parliament.uk. Archived from the original on 2017-09-22. Retrieved 2017-08-30. (paragraph
15): I wish to lay some stress upon the words I have italicised. Lord Nicholls was not laying down any rule of law. There is only one rule of law, namely that the occurrence of the fact in issue must be proved to have been more probable than not.
Common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question, regard should be had, to whatever extent appropriate, to inherent probabilities.
31. ^ Nyman Gibson Miralis: Dennis Miralis & Phillip Gibson (2019). “Chapter 4: Australia” (PDF). International
Comparative Legal Guides – Cartels & Leniency 2020: A practical cross-border insight into cartels & leniency (13th ed.). London: Glg global legal group. p. 17. ISBN 9781839180088. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
32. ^ Jump up to:a b “Onus and standard of
proof”. www.judcom.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 2023-07-11. Proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of proof the Crown must achieve before you can convict [him/her] and the words mean exactly what they say — proof beyond reasonable
doubt. When you finish considering the evidence in the trial and the submissions made by the parties you must ask yourself whether the Crown has established the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
33. ^ Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) (153 ed.). Australia:
Commonwealth of Australia – Attorney General’s Department (published 18 January 2024). 8 January 2024. s4G.
34. ^ “Commonwealth Criminal Offences”. Slades & Parsons. Retrieved 2023-07-05. Offences under commonwealth law will either be: A summary
offence, punishable by up to 12 months in prison An indictable offence, punishable by more than 12 months in prison.
35. ^ “Local Court Bench Book — Commonwealth Offences”. Judicial Commission of New South Wales. Retrieved 9 July 2023.
36. ^ “Protections
from statutory encroachment”. ALRC. Retrieved 2023-07-11. 8.30 The Australian Constitution does not expressly provide that criminal trials must be ‘fair’, nor does it set out the elements of a fair trial, but it does protect many attributes of a
fair trial and may by implication be found to protect other attributes.
37. ^ “Protections from statutory encroachment”. ALRC. Retrieved 2023-07-11. 8.36 The High Court may have moved towards—but stopped short of—entrenching procedural fairness
as a constitutional right.[43] If procedural fairness were considered an essential characteristic of a court, this might have the potential, among other things, to constitutionalise “the presumption of innocence, the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard
of proof in criminal proceedings, the privilege against self-incrimination, limitations on the use of secret evidence, limitations on ex parte proceedings, limitations on any power to continue proceedings in the face of an unrepresented party, limitations
on courts’ jurisdiction to make an adverse finding on law or fact that has not been put to the parties, and limitations on the power of a court or a judge to proceed where proceedings may be affected by actual or apprehended bias”.
38. ^ LACEY,
WENDY. “Lacey, Wendy — “Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales: Breathing Life into Kable” [2010] MelbULawRw 21; (2010) 34(2) Melbourne University Law Review 641″. Melbourne University Law Review. 34 (2) – via Austlii. In the plurality judgment,
the error committed by the Industrial Court was adjudged to mean that the Court conducted a trial that was not in accordance with the laws of evidence. Accordingly, the Industrial Court acted ‘in breach of the limits on its power to try charges of
a criminal offence’ and ‘misapprehended a limit on its powers’.
39. ^ Jump up to:a b c de Plevitz, Loretta (2003). “Briginshaw ‘Standard of Proof’ in Anti-Discrimination Law: ‘Pointing with a Wavering Finger”. Melbourne University Law Review.
27 (2). Retrieved 10 July 2023 – via Austlii.
40. ^ Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66, 110 CLR 445 at p 449-50, High Court.
41. ^ An, R (on the application of) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department &
Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1605 (21 December 2005). See: paragraph 32
42. ^ “An, R (on the application of) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1605 (21 December 2005)”. www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2023-07-05. Paragraph
32.
43. ^ Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=&section=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=cited
44. ^
“Still unsure about Briginshaw?”. McCabe Curwood. 2019-11-12. Retrieved 2020-09-19.
45. ^ Briginshaw v Briginshaw [193] HCA 34, 60 CLR 336 at p 362 Dixon J.
46. ^ “Qantas Airways Limited v Gama [2008] FCAFC 69 (2 May 2008)”. Austlii. Retrieved
12 July 2023.
47. ^ “G v H [1994] HCA 48; (1994) 181 CLR 387; (1994) 124 ALR 353 (19 October 1994)”. Austlii. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
48. ^ Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) [2023] FCA 555, at paragraph (110); citing
Seymour v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1977) 19 NSWLR 219 per Mahoney JA (at 226)
49. ^ Doherty, Ben (1 June 2023). “Ben Roberts-Smith loses defamation case with judge saying newspapers established truth of murders”. The Guardian. Archived
from the original on 1 June 2023. Retrieved 1 June 2023.
50. ^ Visontay, Elias; Doherty, Ben (1 June 2023). “Ben Roberts-Smith: the murders and war crimes at the heart of a seismic defamation battle”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on
1 June 2023. Retrieved 1 June 2023.
51. ^ Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41)[2023] FCA 555, (at paragraph 11) | Quote of imputation that was proven: “The applicant broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement
and is therefore a criminal.”
52. ^ Gans, Jeremy [@jeremy_gans] (July 31, 2022). “”Kate Eastman, SC, said the barriers making criminal prosecutions of sexual assault difficult also applied to bringing civil cases.” Indeed. It’s hard to see how
the Briginshaw principle is much different to beyond reasonable doubt” (Tweet). Archived from the original on 31 July 2022. Retrieved 1 July 2023 – via Twitter.
53. ^ Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317
54. ^ “California Evidence Code, Sec.
662”. California Legislative Information. California State Legislature. Archived from the original on 2020-05-15. Retrieved 2020-01-21.
55. ^ “Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1”. Archived from the original on 2015-09-23. Retrieved 2015-01-22.
56. ^
The critical facts of a criminal case are whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant is criminally responsible for the commission of the crime.
57. ^ Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).
58. ^ Road Traffic Offenders
Act 1988, s.5(2)
59. ^ Jump up to:a b Herring, J. (2004). Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 58–64. ISBN 0-19-876578-9.
60. ^ R v. DPP, ex parte Kebeline Archived 2008-12-01 at the Wayback Machine [1999]
UKHL 43
61. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e 546 U.S. 49 (2005)
62. ^ Jump up to:a b 413 U.S. 189 (1973)
63. ^ 512 U.S. 267 (1994)
Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteomarco/5955501969/’]