LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW — Theft — Standard of Proof — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Required for Criminal Allegations in Disciplinary Proceedings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
When an allegation involves the commission of a crime, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, not the ordinary civil standard; the accused need only offer evidence on the balance of probabilities to exculpate themselves.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Wali, JSC, in Psychiatric Hospitals Management Board v. Edosa (2001) NLC-1631995(SC) at p. 9; Paras C–E.
"This apart, the allegation against the respondent involved commission of a crime which raised the onus to that of proof beyond reasonable doubt on the appellant. This is a condition precedent if he was to succeed. As for the respondent, she needed only to offer evidence to the preponderance of probability to exculpate herself from the accusation."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When a disciplinary proceeding involves a criminal allegation (e.g., theft), the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, not the usual civil standard. The accuser must prove the allegation to the criminal standard. The accused need only raise a reasonable doubt or offer evidence on the balance of probabilities. The principle recognises the serious consequences of a finding of criminal conduct. The rule applies even though the proceeding is civil or administrative. The employer or disciplinary body cannot rely on the lower civil standard. The accused is entitled to the same protection as in criminal proceedings. Failure to apply the correct standard invalidates the decision.