Key points
- Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard the prosecution must meet to prove that someone is guilty of a crime.
- The burden is on the prosecution for every element, and it never shifts; the accused does not have to prove their innocence.
- It is not enough that the accused is probably, or even very likely, guilty.
- A reasonable doubt is not a fanciful one: imaginary or unrealistic possibilities do not count.
- Civil cases are different: they are decided on the balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not.
- Victoria requires judges to explain the phrase to juries; elsewhere judges generally treat it as ordinary words that need no explanation.
- For advice on a criminal charge, call 1800 577 015 at any hour: free general legal information, and a 60-minute consultation with a lawyer for a fixed $295.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof in Australian criminal trials: the prosecution must prove every element of the offence to that standard, the burden never shifts to the accused, and it is not enough for the prosecution to show that the accused is probably or very likely guilty. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or fanciful doubt; civil cases, by contrast, are decided on the balance of probabilities.
Checked on 23 October 2026 against the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) and the Judicial Commission of NSW's Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book.
What "beyond reasonable doubt" means
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the standard the prosecution must meet before anyone can be convicted of a crime. Section 141 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) puts it plainly: in a criminal proceeding, the court is not to find the prosecution's case proved unless it is satisfied that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- The prosecution carries the burden for every element of the offence, and it never shifts to the accused. The accused does not have to prove they are innocent.
- The presumption of innocence: a person charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless and until the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Ordinary words: courts treat "beyond reasonable doubt" as ordinary English words that mean what they say, and, outside Victoria, judges generally do not try to explain or embellish the phrase. The High Court set out that approach in Green v The Queen (1971).
- Each juror decides: whether a doubt is reasonable is a question for each juror, applying their own judgment to the evidence.
- Fanciful doubts do not count: a judge can tell a jury that fanciful or unreal possibilities are not reasonable doubts.
How judges explain it in Victoria
Victoria is different: under the Jury Directions Act 2015, the trial judge must explain the phrase to the jury, before any evidence is given, unless there are good reasons not to. In explaining it, the judge may say that:
- the accused is presumed innocent, and the prosecution must prove that the accused is guilty;
- it is not enough for the prosecution to persuade the jury that the accused is probably guilty, or very likely to be guilty;
- it is almost impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty when reconstructing past events, and the prosecution does not have to do so;
- the jury cannot be satisfied that the accused is guilty if it has a reasonable doubt about whether the accused is guilty;
- a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or fanciful doubt, or an unrealistic possibility.
The judge may repeat or adapt the explanation, for example if the jury asks what the phrase means.
What must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- The elements and the defences: the prosecution must prove each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and, where a defence such as self-defence is raised, must disprove it to the same standard. In Victoria, the Jury Directions Act says these are the only matters a judge may direct must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Not every fact: the prosecution does not have to prove every single disputed fact beyond reasonable doubt, only the elements of the charge (and the absence of any relevant defence).
- When the accused has to prove something: a few laws place a burden on the accused, for example for some defences. Then the accused only has to prove it on the balance of probabilities.
Beyond reasonable doubt and the balance of probabilities
| Criminal cases | Civil cases | |
|---|---|---|
| Standard | Beyond reasonable doubt (for the prosecution) | On the balance of probabilities |
| Who must prove it | The prosecution | The party making the claim |
| What it means in practice | Not enough that guilt is probable or very likely | More likely than not, with the court considering how serious the allegations are |
Courts have recognised that contrasting the two standards can help a jury understand how high the criminal standard is.
An example
Imagine the only evidence that the accused was the person who committed a robbery is a witness who saw someone at night from across the street. A juror who thinks the witness was probably right, but sees a realistic possibility that the witness was mistaken, has a reasonable doubt and must not find the accused guilty on that evidence. A juror whose only doubt is a far-fetched idea, such as an unknown identical twin with no evidence to support it, does not have a reasonable doubt.
How Go To Court Lawyers can help
Our free line, 1800 577 015, answers at any hour. Jen, our AI legal information assistant, gives general legal information and takes your details; Jen is not a lawyer and does not give advice about your case. A 60-minute consultation with a lawyer who practises in your state is a fixed $295, by phone, video or in person where the lawyer offers it. The lawyer can explain what the prosecution has to prove in your case, assess the evidence against you, and represent you in court. Requests are taken at any hour; how soon a lawyer can see you depends on who is available. Request a $295 consultation.
General information only, not legal advice. Updated 23 October 2026. Checked against the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), sections 140 and 141; the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), version 018, sections 61 to 64; and the Judicial Commission of NSW's Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book, "Onus and standard of proof" (last updated September 2026), on 23 October 2026.