If someone could please set me straight for my own ongoing training (and while spoken of in another aligned posting on RRS standard of proof), as follows:
- it was established before, that: for rule 69, uniquely, we have 'comfortable staisfaction' and for all other rules we have 'balance of probabilities' ("(unless an applicable rule requires otherwise)").
- However, I now see that in 18.2 (e) it uses the term 'reasonable doubt' (being of course a higher standard again than the aforementioned standards).
Is this correct?
This is the start of Answer 1. There is much more in the case.
Answer 1
‘Comfortable satisfaction’ is one of three standards of proof commonly used in
courts of law or arbitration hearings. The other two standards are ‘proof beyond
a reasonable doubt’ and ‘balance of probabilities’. The ‘proof beyond a
reasonable doubt’ standard is the strictest of the three standards. It is usually
reserved for serious criminal cases. The ‘balance of probabilities’ standard (also
sometimes referred to as the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard) is the
least strict of the three, and it is widely used in civil legal proceedings.
...
I got the impression with comfortable satisfaction, that say for a warning it may be quite easy to be so satisfied, but for an event disqualification, a lot more evidence would be required.
Reasonable doubt, is hopefully well understood.
I think there is a distinction which the wording hides.
The burden of proof looks at the facts found, and then decides the outcome based on those facts.
The 18 qualification, gives you a means to find a fact (overlap or not) when you have a reasonable doubt about the fact.
Balance of probability as standard of proof is “more likely than not” - 50.5% to 49.5%.
The classic test for “beyond reasonable doubt” is “possible, but not in the least probable.” Now more often phrased as “certain”, but I’d stick with the classic one as being more easily understood.
“Comfortable satisfaction” isn’t clearly defined. It’s between the two. I’d suggest it’s where you are not finely weighing the odds, as in balance of probabilities, but not quite at “Not in the real world” of beyond reasonable doubt.