Balance of probabilities? “More likely than not”? Is this usual for these types of legal cases?
I was under the impression decisions had to be made “beyond a reasonable doubt” and justice was based on an onus to prove guilt (e.g. innocent until proven guilty).
This seems an insanely dangerous way of determining guilt.
It’s a civil case. There is no “guilt” here. No one is going to jail or gaining a criminal record. There is no criminality.
Instead, there’s a judgment as to whether one has executed their civil responsibilities. And for such cases, the burden is “on the balance”. IE, what is more likely.
Here, AFAIU (I haven’t followed the case), someone in the media stated that Lehrmann raped someone, Lehrmann sued them for defamation, to which the basic/obvious defence, and the one employed by the media person, is that the statement in question is true. It was found, on the balance of probabilities, that the statement was true (or more likely true than not).
The line from the judge “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat", AFAICT, is a reference to how Lehrmann escaped being criminally convicted (and luckily so IIRC) but then found it necessary to bring this defamation case.
Now we know he probably did it and most people if they saw all the evidence would probably conclude the same. Maybe not certainly enough to throw him in jail (though we don’t know that) but certainly enough to say “fuck off with this defamation shit”.
someone in the media stated that Lehrmann raped someone
So, I also haven’t followed the case very closely, but AIUI, it actually wasn’t even that. Brittany Higgins merely went to the media and stated that she was raped by her former boss. Lehrmann merely claimed that it was obvious she was talking about him from her statements.
There was a criminal trial a while back, but it was declared a mistrial after some jury fuckery. They declined to re-prosecute because of the detrimental effect it would have on Higgins’ mental health. As others have said, this is a civil trial, specifically, Lehrmann trying to sue the people Higgins went to in the media to tell her story for defaming him.
Truth is a defence to defamation, so proving that the claims were true (in this case, as others have said, to the balance of probabilities, rather than beyond all reasonable doubt) is a way to win a defamation case as a defendant.
This was a defamation case, i.e. a civil case. Ten’s defence was that their imputation that Lehrmann raped Higgins was substantially true, so the judge had to rule on whether or not the rape happened. It is not a criminal conviction and there won’t be one in this case because the criminal trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct.
Not a lawyer, but I believe the level of proof depends on whether its a civil trial like this one, or a criminal trial, like the previous one which fell apart after juror misconduct. So basically the level of proof is lower when it’s about dollars rather than jail time.
Balance of probabilities? “More likely than not”? Is this usual for these types of legal cases?
I was under the impression decisions had to be made “beyond a reasonable doubt” and justice was based on an onus to prove guilt (e.g. innocent until proven guilty).
This seems an insanely dangerous way of determining guilt.
It’s a civil case. There is no “guilt” here. No one is going to jail or gaining a criminal record. There is no criminality.
Instead, there’s a judgment as to whether one has executed their civil responsibilities. And for such cases, the burden is “on the balance”. IE, what is more likely.
Here, AFAIU (I haven’t followed the case), someone in the media stated that Lehrmann raped someone, Lehrmann sued them for defamation, to which the basic/obvious defence, and the one employed by the media person, is that the statement in question is true. It was found, on the balance of probabilities, that the statement was true (or more likely true than not).
The line from the judge “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat", AFAICT, is a reference to how Lehrmann escaped being criminally convicted (and luckily so IIRC) but then found it necessary to bring this defamation case.
Now we know he probably did it and most people if they saw all the evidence would probably conclude the same. Maybe not certainly enough to throw him in jail (though we don’t know that) but certainly enough to say “fuck off with this defamation shit”.
edit: spelling
So, I also haven’t followed the case very closely, but AIUI, it actually wasn’t even that. Brittany Higgins merely went to the media and stated that she was raped by her former boss. Lehrmann merely claimed that it was obvious she was talking about him from her statements.
Thanks for clarifying.
is not original but had many colorful turns of phrase which you can read here.
Am lawyer, “beyond reasonable doubt” is for criminal charges. “Balance of probabilities” is for civil cases ie where jail is not a penalty option.
Defamation is civil.
Thanks! Good to know, that makes sense.
There was a criminal trial a while back, but it was declared a mistrial after some jury fuckery. They declined to re-prosecute because of the detrimental effect it would have on Higgins’ mental health. As others have said, this is a civil trial, specifically, Lehrmann trying to sue the people Higgins went to in the media to tell her story for defaming him.
Truth is a defence to defamation, so proving that the claims were true (in this case, as others have said, to the balance of probabilities, rather than beyond all reasonable doubt) is a way to win a defamation case as a defendant.
This was a defamation case, i.e. a civil case. Ten’s defence was that their imputation that Lehrmann raped Higgins was substantially true, so the judge had to rule on whether or not the rape happened. It is not a criminal conviction and there won’t be one in this case because the criminal trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct.
Not a lawyer, but I believe the level of proof depends on whether its a civil trial like this one, or a criminal trial, like the previous one which fell apart after juror misconduct. So basically the level of proof is lower when it’s about dollars rather than jail time.
Why do people feel the need to downvote when someone asks a question? This sucks for discourse. Assume good faith and downvote the trolls.
Just turn off votes altogether, they don’t make any difference AFAIK. I didn’t even know that comment was downvoted until you brought it up.
It affects ranking and works decently to put the best comments near the top and the bad comments toward the bottom.
There are so few comments here that it doesn’t actually make any difference. Unless you only ever read the top comment or something.
deleted by creator