Editing Burden of proof (law) (section)

==== Beyond reasonable doubt ====
{{main|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. It has been described, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. 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.

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. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. 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.

If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty which precludes the existence of any reasonable alternatives. 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.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|55|1971|litigants=Green v The Queen |parallelcite=(1971) 126 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 28 at p. 33 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> Further to this notion of moral certainty, where the trier of fact relies on proof that is solely circumstantial, ''i.e.'', when conviction is based entirely on [[circumstantial evidence]], certain jurisdictions specifically require the prosecution's burden of proof to be such that the facts proved must exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis or inference other than guilt.

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. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which monetary damages are the common remedy.

Another noncriminal instance in which proof beyond a reasonable doubt is applied is [[Conservatorship|LPS conservatorship]].