Level of proof?

[El Cid 214]

When its one person word against anothers, how do courts find in one person favour?

 

Historical crimes for instance, no fingerprints or witnesses that can remember any details.

[K1Machine 10]

1 persons word against anothers? Ive no idea. When you say Historical crimes am I right in thinking you mean these women who come forward years later to say a man raped or molested them?

[Obelix 11]

3 hours ago, El Cid said:

When its one person word against anothers, how do courts find in one person favour?

 

Historical crimes for instance, no fingerprints or witnesses that can remember any details.

In criminal cases you have to be certain "beyond reasonable doubt". If it comes down to one persons word against another then you have to ask if there could be a reasonable doubt that someone is mistaken no matter how convinced they are of the matter. Turnbull's rules of identification are an interesting read for example...

[Cyclone 10]

3 hours ago, El Cid said:

When its one person word against anothers, how do courts find in one person favour?

 

Historical crimes for instance, no fingerprints or witnesses that can remember any details.

If there really is no evidence apart from 2 people saying contradictory things then you'd think as a jury it would be difficult to find against someone as Obelix says "beyond reasonable doubt".

If however the defendant can be shown to have a pattern of previous behaviour, or inconsistencies in the story they are telling, or even previous form for lying, then it might be easier to reach that decision, particularly if the witness is clear, consistent and of demonstrably good character.

[El Cid 214]

3 hours ago, Cyclone said:

If however the defendant can be shown to have a pattern of previous behaviour, or inconsistencies in the story they are telling, or even previous form for lying, then it might be easier to reach that decision, particularly if the witness is clear, consistent and of demonstrably good character.

1

I am just thinking generally. Even with the above example, there would still be doubt.

The odds would start off at 50/50, but could one persons word against another ever be more than 80/20?

[Jim Hardie 524]

We will see a high profile case such as this played out in Scotland later this year and the verdict will be 'not proven'.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

9 hours ago, El Cid said:

When its one person word against anothers, how do courts find in one person favour?

They don't.

 

If the only evidence of a crime is one person's word, it won't go to court. 

 

In legal terms it won't have reached the evidential threshold applied by the CPS for prosecution.

[Mossway 15]

27 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

They don't.

 

If the only evidence of a crime is one person's word, it won't go to court. 

 

In legal terms it won't have reached the evidential threshold applied by the CPS for prosecution.

Not so,

Many sex offences involve only two people. Rape is a good example. If the complainant makes a complaint and names the perpetrator the police are under a duty to investigate.

Even if the accused  person in interview denies it, if he’s charged, it’s up to a jury to decide eventually.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

2 hours ago, Mossway said:

Even if the accused  person in interview denies it, if he’s charged, it’s up to a jury to decide eventually.

Yes, if he is charged.

 

Tell me how many people are charged each year on the uncorroborated word of someone else?

[Cyclone 10]

10 hours ago, Mossway said:

Not so,

Many sex offences involve only two people. Rape is a good example. If the complainant makes a complaint and names the perpetrator the police are under a duty to investigate.

Even if the accused  person in interview denies it, if he’s charged, it’s up to a jury to decide eventually.

You've missed out the CPS in the chain of events.

 

Police are duty bound to investigate, the CPS then decide whether to prosecute or not and then the court tries the case.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

Whether or not a case can be prosecuted, it is still important to ALWAYS report rape and sexual assault.

 

Evidence can always come to light at a later date and if there are inconsistancies in the accused's account under caution, this can be used at a later date. If no statement is made by the victim at the time of the offence, the accused's defence will make a big deal of this. "Why didn't you report it at the time?" always plays heavily in sowing the seeds of doubt in a jury's mind.

 

Even if the police quite rightly, warn you that a prosecution is unlikely, still insist on making a statement and at least it is now on record. It will also increase the public profile of this massively underreported crime.

[Ontarian1981 10]

On 24/01/2019 at 10:07, Cyclone said:

If there really is no evidence apart from 2 people saying contradictory things then you'd think as a jury it would be difficult to find against someone as Obelix says "beyond reasonable doubt".

If however the defendant can be shown to have a pattern of previous behaviour, or inconsistencies in the story they are telling, or even previous form for lying, then it might be easier to reach that decision, particularly if the witness is clear, consistent and of demonstrably good character.

 Unless there is a court judgement proving  perjury against someone , a reputation for lying would be considered hearsay and would be inadmissible in a court of law, as would saying his opponent was of good character.