It was further assessed that reasonable doubt will automatically exclude unreasonable doubt, fanciful doubt, imaginary doubt and speculative doubt i.e. 18 P.267 at 279, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt with emphasis on “reasonable”‘ That not all doubts are reasonable.
As was held by Oputa, JSC in Bakare v The State (1987) 1 NSCC Vol. It simply means establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. “Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt, or all shadow of doubt.
Therefore, it is not enough for the prosecution to suspect a person of having committed a crime, there must be evidence which linked the person accused with the offence alleged.” Per OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, JSC (Pp 43 – 43 Paras B – C) “…the standard of proof in a criminal trial is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. The provision of the law on the standard of proof required in criminal trials must be appreciated against the backdrop of the presumption of innocence of the accused persons (or defendants) as well as the position of the law that mere suspicion is not enough to ground a conviction for an offence.ĭecided Cases on the Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases
A degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. STATE (2015) LPELR-25986(SC), the Supreme Court described proof beyond reasonable doubt in the following words – “Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt, or all shadow of doubt. This position has been followed by a plethora of Nigerian cases. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence, of course, it is possible but not in the least probable the case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of doubt. A pertinent question would be what amounts to proof beyond reasonable doubt? In the case of Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372, Lord Denning said on the nature of proof beyond reasonable doubt, said that It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Synopsis – The standard of proof in criminal cases is now established to be proof beyond reasonable doubt and not proof beyond every shadow of doubt. Relevant Sections of the Evidence Act – Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011 Ingredients of the offence of Armed Robbery.Decided Cases on the Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases.
0 kommentar(er)
