Ambiguity Of Scots Law Essay

here are two recognised standards of proof in Scots law. The first is beyond reasonable doubt, which is usually in criminal cases. The second is on the balance of probabilities which arises mostly in the civil context. This would suggest that the law on the standard of proof is straightforward. However ambiguity arises in the argument that there is or that there should be a third standard. Another important complication to this area of the law arises when considering civil circumstances that may result in criminal sanctions. This is something that will also be considered in detail throughout this essay, and would cause me to argue that the law in this area is not clear and straightforward.

In criminal cases the crown must prove the accused committed offence beyond reasonable doubt. In some cases there is a persuasive burden on accused, this discharged by proof on the balance of probabilities. This is the first demonstration of the crossover between the two standards that aim to be distinct and clear. This is shown in HM Advocate v Mitchell .

The matter is more meaty in the discussion of the standard that applies to civil matters. A party on whom lies …show more content…
The rule in all civil actions the standard of proof required is always the balance of probabilities. However, some cases have created ambiguity by suggesting that where there is an element of criminal activity. This can require a higher quality of evidence to tip the balance. Despite authority that firmly rejects the notion of an intermediate standard, there is a body of case law that implies where criminal behaviour is averred the Standard of proof is of a different quality if it is to succeed. Judicial dicta contribute to this ambiguity creating the perception of an intermediate standard. In Lennon, Lord Kincraig