Presumption of Innocence -- What Is Reasonable Doubt?

Today's Superior Court decision in R. v. Willis, 2008 CanLII 22137 (ON S.C.) has a convenient summary of the law related to the presumption of innocence:

[2] Mr. Willis is presumed to be innocent unless and until Crown counsel has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not for Mr. Willis to prove anything in this case, in particular that he is innocent of the crime charged.

[3] It is for Crown counsel to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the events alleged in fact occurred and that Mr. Willis was the person involved in them. It is not for Mr. Willis to prove that these events never happened. If I have a reasonable doubt whether the events alleged ever took place, I must find Mr. Willis not guilty.

[4] I take into account that a reasonable doubt is not a far-fetched or frivolous doubt. It is not some fanciful doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice, rather, it is an honest and fair doubt based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that logically arises from the evidence or the lack of evidence. It is not enough that I believe that Mr. Willis is likely guilty. In those circumstances, I would find him not guilty because Crown counsel would have failed to satisfy me of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof of probable or likely guilt is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[5] I should also remember, however, that it is nearly impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. Crown counsel is not required to do so. Absolute certainty is a standard of proof that is impossibly high. If at the end of the case, based on all the evidence, I am sure that Mr. Willis committed the offence with which he is charged, I should find him guilty of it as I would have been satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If at the end of the case, based on all the evidence, I am not sure that Mr. Willis committed the offence, I should find him not guilty. If after careful consideration of all the evidence in this case there remains in my mind a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Mr. Willis, the Crown has failed to meet the standard of proof which the law requires, the presumption of innocence prevails and it is my duty to acquit. If on the other hand, after careful consideration of all the evidence, I am left with no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Mr. Willis, the presumption of innocence has been displaced and it is my duty to convict.

James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4