Proof beyond reasonable doubt (Zimbabwe): Difference between revisions
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Ddemetriou (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The State is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires more than proof on a balance of probabilities. It is not, however, proof to an absolute degree of certainty or beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where there is proof beyond reasonable doubt no reasonable doubt will remain as to the guilt of the accused. If a reasonable person would still entertain a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Fanciful or remote possibilities do not introduce a reasonable doubt: | The State is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires more than proof on a balance of probabilities. It is not, however, proof to an absolute degree of certainty or beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where there is proof beyond reasonable doubt no reasonable doubt will remain as to the guilt of the accused. If a reasonable person would still entertain a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Fanciful or remote possibilities do not introduce a reasonable doubt: | ||
Isolano 1985 (1) ZLR 62 at 64-65. | Isolano 1985 (1) ZLR 62 at 64-65. | ||
---- | |||
See [[Zimbabwe | Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual]] | |||
Latest revision as of 22:18, 28 June 2010
The State is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires more than proof on a balance of probabilities. It is not, however, proof to an absolute degree of certainty or beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where there is proof beyond reasonable doubt no reasonable doubt will remain as to the guilt of the accused. If a reasonable person would still entertain a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Fanciful or remote possibilities do not introduce a reasonable doubt: Isolano 1985 (1) ZLR 62 at 64-65.
