Edit: It's generally considered mitigatory when possession of drugs is not for the purposes of trafficking (though, strictly speaking, this ought properly to be considered the absence of aggravation). There's no firm rule as to how much of a drug of dependence is too much to be considered intended for personal use. In Hanks v …
Tag: standard of proof
Tsolacis v The Department of Transport [2010] VSC 183: ‘substantially proved’ is not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’
Tsolacis v The Department of Transport [2010] VSC 183 highlights the desirability of magistrates expressing themselves unequivocally in the terminology appropriate to the application of criminal law, and stating detailed reasons as best they can when making findings of fact.In Tsolacis, a confrontation between authorised officers of the Department of Transport and the accused lead …
Tsolacis v The Department of Transport [2010] VSC 183: 'substantially proved' is not 'beyond reasonable doubt'
Tsolacis v The Department of Transport [2010] VSC 183 highlights the desirability of magistrates expressing themselves unequivocally in the terminology appropriate to the application of criminal law, and stating detailed reasons as best they can when making findings of fact.In Tsolacis, a confrontation between authorised officers of the Department of Transport and the accused lead …
WA Law: proof of facts on sentence
An addition to the body of law on the burden and standard of proof applicable to sentencing hearings appeared over the wires from Western Australia yesterday: Law v Western Australia [2009] WASCA 193It borrows heavily from our own R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359. The prosecution have to prove aggravating facts in a sentencing …
Beyond reasonable doubt
We all know what the criminal standard of proof is, but what is it? What does it really mean?Try putting a percentage figure on it. We know that beyond reasonable doubt will be much higher than being just 50% sure, but how much higher? 70 or 80%? 90%, maybe? Why don’t we just dive in …