Difference between revisions of "Proof beyond reasonable doubt (Zimbabwe)"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchDdemetriou (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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.