Burden of proof:
There are two types of burden of proof:
Evidentiary (or evidential)
Raising the issue sufficiently to have the judge call on the other side to answer;
enough evidence to make the situation alleged a reasonable possibility – see
CTM [2008] HCA, Khazaal [2012] HCA
Persuasive (or legal)
The burden of proving the existence of the matter.
Or the burden on a party at trial to present sufficient evidence to persuade the fact-
finder, by the applicable standard of proof, of the truth of a fact or assertion and to
convince the fact-finder to interpret the facts in a way that favours the party.
Standard of proof is the amount of evidence necessary to prove an assertion or
claim in a trial. In other words, how much evidence (standard) is required to persuade
the fact finder/ legally proof a matter.
We generally refer to two standards of proof under persuasive (or legal) burden of proof:
- Beyond reasonable doubt
- On the balance of probabilities
Imagine you are talking to your friend (‘friend A’) and then your other friend (‘friend B’)
tells you that some store is selling your most favourite snack for half price. You don’t believe
them, and friend A says ‘that’s bullshit’). You don’t bother to check the store. But then friend
B shows you a photo that says your favourite snack is being sold for half price. You have
some doubts (so your friend B hasn’t proved it yet), but you say ‘that’s enough evidence to
check that store’. Friend A is pissed off, and still argue that’s bullshit, but if they wanna
prove the store doesn’t sell the snack for half price, they must provide evidence and prove
beyond reaosnble doubt.
That’s what we call evidentiary burden of proof. Enough evidence that the other party has to
prove the matter is otherwise (usually P has to prove BRD).
So the defendant raises enough evidence about a matter (evidentiary burden is satisfied), that
it requires the P to prove BRD that the matter is not true.
There are two types of burden of proof:
Evidentiary (or evidential)
Raising the issue sufficiently to have the judge call on the other side to answer;
enough evidence to make the situation alleged a reasonable possibility – see
CTM [2008] HCA, Khazaal [2012] HCA
Persuasive (or legal)
The burden of proving the existence of the matter.
Or the burden on a party at trial to present sufficient evidence to persuade the fact-
finder, by the applicable standard of proof, of the truth of a fact or assertion and to
convince the fact-finder to interpret the facts in a way that favours the party.
Standard of proof is the amount of evidence necessary to prove an assertion or
claim in a trial. In other words, how much evidence (standard) is required to persuade
the fact finder/ legally proof a matter.
We generally refer to two standards of proof under persuasive (or legal) burden of proof:
- Beyond reasonable doubt
- On the balance of probabilities
Imagine you are talking to your friend (‘friend A’) and then your other friend (‘friend B’)
tells you that some store is selling your most favourite snack for half price. You don’t believe
them, and friend A says ‘that’s bullshit’). You don’t bother to check the store. But then friend
B shows you a photo that says your favourite snack is being sold for half price. You have
some doubts (so your friend B hasn’t proved it yet), but you say ‘that’s enough evidence to
check that store’. Friend A is pissed off, and still argue that’s bullshit, but if they wanna
prove the store doesn’t sell the snack for half price, they must provide evidence and prove
beyond reaosnble doubt.
That’s what we call evidentiary burden of proof. Enough evidence that the other party has to
prove the matter is otherwise (usually P has to prove BRD).
So the defendant raises enough evidence about a matter (evidentiary burden is satisfied), that
it requires the P to prove BRD that the matter is not true.
