Probable cause and other levels of proof

Before the various steps of the criminal justice system can be initi­ated — arrest, booking, arraignment and sentencing — different levels of proof are required. The levels of proof recognized by law are as follows:

Suspicion: The lowest level of proof justifying a police action. Sus­picion may occur when a police officer has only slight evidence to be­lieve that a crime has been or is in the process of being committed. It permits a police officer to initiate an investigation.

Reasonable Belief: Reasonable belief is a specific and reasonable conclusion drawn from observable facts. It permits the police to stop and search a person when they have reason to believe they are dealing with an armed and dangerous persons.

Probable cause: This higher level of proof exists when one has suf­ficient and reliable information that a crime has been committed and that the accused has committed that crime. It is the standard used for arrest, search and arraignment.

Preponderance of Evidence: This means that the weight of evidence is greater for one side than for the other. This is sufficient for making a judgement in civil cases, but not enough to convict in criminal cases.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: This level of proof exists when, after ex­amining the evidence presented, a reasonable person would rely on it. It is the standard needed to convict in a criminal case.

It is difficult to distinguish between each of the levels of the proof described above. Yet the different levels of proof serve as a good illus­tration of how society attempts to deal with the problem of protecting the state from crime while at the same time guaranteeing and protecting an individual's liberty. The aim is to limit police actions that are unrea­sonable or discriminatory while at the same time making it possible for the police to enforce the law. Mere suspicion is not enough to put someone in jail, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is needed to prove criminal guilt. No person can be found guilty of a criminal offence without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a person can be arrested and searched, and formally charged with a crime on the basis of evi­dence that is less than that required to convict him.

(Law, Order and Justice, D.T.Taylor)

Additional texts

Text A: Do a written translation of the text.

THE BELLS OF THE OLD BAILY

In 1834 the Central Criminal Court was set up by statute, as the Court in which the Commissioners were to do their work. Since that time the proceedings held at the Sessions House were those of the Cen­tral Criminal Court. By the Judicature Act of 1875 the Central Criminal Court was constituted part of the High Court of Justice. Its jurisdiction has been subsequently extended and now covers indictable offences (offences other than those triable summarily before magistrates), committed within the City of London, the counties of London and Middlesex, and much of the surrounding country-side. It also has juris­diction over offences committed on the High Seas (thus inheriting the criminal jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty). And less serious of­fences, if committed within the City of London, are tried at the Central Criminal Court.

The Court must sit for at least twelve sessions in the year (it in fact sits for twelve), and each session lasts for nearly a month. The vacations observed by the civil side of the Supreme Court have no place here. At the beginning of each session is read out the list of persons commis­sioned to hear cases. The persons so commissioned are the Lord Mayor of London, the Lord Chancellor, all the judges of the High Court and certain other persons. The Court may sit in two or more divisions («courts») and these may be as many as five. The majority of the work is done by the three officials together with one or more special commis­sioners. But on the third day of each session a professional judge sits to try the most serious cases, and continues until they have been disposed of.

There is a tendency towards a more humane administration of the criminal law. For many years the reform in the punishment of offences after conviction has been accompanied by a trend towards a more satis­factory trial of accused prisoners before they are convicted. English criminal law has progressed over the centuries, from an attitude which regarded the fact that a man was charged with an offence as strong evi­dence that he had committed it, to one which affords the prisoner all the consideration and courtesy due to an innocent man until he is proved guilty. But the old traditions die hard, and judges and advocates who had been trained in the older school at the Old Bailey survived the formal changes.

Text B: This article deals with the problem of crime as Scandina­vian criminologists see it. Read the article and give your own opinion.