Editing Burden of proof (law) (section)

=== Criminal standard ===
The criminal standard in Australia is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |title=Onus and standard of proof |url=https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/onus_and_standard_of_proof.html |access-date=2023-07-11 |website=www.judcom.nsw.gov.au |quote=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.}}</ref> An offence against a Commonwealth law, with a term of imprisonment in excess of 12 months is an 'indictable offence';<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.legislation.gov.au/C1914A00012/latest/text |title=Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) |date=8 January 2024 |publisher=Commonwealth of Australia - Attorney General's Department |edition=153 |location=Australia |publication-date=18 January 2024 |at=s4G |language=en-au}}</ref> and is constitutionally required to be tried before jury of 12 people.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Commonwealth Criminal Offences |url=https://www.sladesparsons.com.au/commonwealth-criminal-offences/ |access-date=2023-07-05 |website=Slades & Parsons |language=en-US |quote=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.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Local Court Bench Book — Commonwealth Offences |url=https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/local/commonwealth_offences.html |access-date=9 July 2023 |website=Judicial Commission of New South Wales}}</ref> Offences that do not carry a term of imprisonment  exceeding 12 months are called 'Summary Offences'. Some offences (with a term of imprisonment <10 years) may be heard by a court of summary jurisdiction, ''a.k.a.'' Magistrates Court with the consent of all parties; however the court may not impose a sentence greater than 12 months. Juries are required to make findings of guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal matters.<ref name=":4" /> 

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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Protections from statutory encroachment |url=https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-commonwealth-laws-alrc-report-129/8-fair-trial-2/protections-from-statutory-encroachment-27/ |access-date=2023-07-11 |website=ALRC |language=en-AU |quote=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.}}</ref> The High Court has moved toward, but not yet, entrenched procedural fairness as a constitutional right. If it did so, this would have the potential to constitutionalise the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard in criminal proceedings.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Protections from statutory encroachment |url=https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-commonwealth-laws-alrc-report-129/8-fair-trial-2/protections-from-statutory-encroachment-27/ |access-date=2023-07-11 |website=ALRC |language=en-AU |quote=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".}}</ref>

State offences are not subject to the constitution's section 80 requirement for a jury. However, the case of ''[[Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales|Kirk]]'' constrains the way that State courts may operate during criminal trials per the ''[[Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)|Kable Doctrine]].''<ref>{{Cite journal |last=LACEY |first=WENDY |title=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 |url=http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2010/21.html |journal=Melbourne University Law Review |date=2010 |volume=34 |issue=2 |quote=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'. |via=Austlii}}</ref>