Man acquitted of raping daughter as her evidence was not ‘unusually convincing’ — what does this legal term mean?: Explainer

Recently, the High Court acquitted a father accused of 13 charges of various types of sexual abuse and statutory rape against his daughter when she was between five and 12 years old.

This has caused some consternation among commentators, especially as a reason for the acquittal was that the evidence of the daughter was not “unusually convincing” enough to justify conviction.

While it may seem alarming that the standard for victims of sexual offences is set so high, in reality, this is neither unusual nor unreasonable.

To explain why, we need to understand the concept of burdens and standards of proof in the criminal justice system.

PROOF IN LAW

In law, claims must be proved. It is not sufficient merely to assert a fact. Proof means that the claim must be backed by reliable evidence.

The “burden of proof” belongs to the person who must provide the evidence to substantiate the claim.

In general, the person who makes the allegation must prove it.

The burden is put onto the person making the claim in order to deter people from making false and frivolous claims, which would otherwise bog down our courts and disrupt people’s lives unnecessarily.

In criminal law, the prosecution is the party that brings the allegation, known as a charge.

Since it is the prosecution who is claiming that the accused person committed a crime, the prosecution needs to prove this claim by producing evidence in court so that a judge can decide whether the claim is true.

This is a very important safeguard that protects ordinary people from the arbitrary exercise of power.

This brings us to the concept of the “standard of proof”.

This refers to the extent to which the claim must be proven.

It is not possible for a claim to be proved beyond all doubt, as it is always possible to make up some outlandish and unreasonable explanation (for example, an identical imposter did it!).

There are two general standards of proof: Beyond reasonable doubt, and on balance of probabilities.

In civil cases, that is legal proceedings between individuals, the standard of proof is on balance of probabilities.

The claimant needs to prove that his case is more likely to be true than not, in order to win.

In criminal cases, because the potential consequences of conviction are more severe — you could go to jail or even, in some cases, be executed — the standard of proof is much higher.

The prosecution needs to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

This means that if there is any reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt, then he must be acquitted.

For example, if the accused is charged with murder, and he says that it was an identical imposter who committed the offence, and he can also show that he has an identical twin brother, then the doubt raised may be considered reasonable.

In criminal proceedings, presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle.

The accused is entitled to be treated as if he were innocent, unless and until he is found guilty by a court of law. Again, this is a key safeguard against abuse of power.

It would not be desirable for a person to suffer severe consequences simply because he has been accused — that is a witch hunt, not due process.

THE 'UNUSUALLY CONVINCING' STANDARD

Where, then, does this “unusually convincing” test fit in?

In fact, the Court of Appeal has said that there is only one true standard in criminal proceedings — beyond reasonable doubt.

The “unusually convincing” test is merely a shorthand way of saying that, in a case where the prosecution relies on a single piece of evidence to prove its case, that evidence alone has to be so unusually convincing that it is capable of, by itself, proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

This is, of course, unusual.

In most cases, the prosecution will have multiple pieces of evidence, which would be corroborative.

In such cases, the judge could look at the totality of evidence and consider whether its cumulative effect proves the case beyond reasonable doubt.

It is misleading therefore to think of the “unusually convincing” test as a separate standard of proof.

The Court of Appeal has characterised it as a “heuristic tool”, a rule of thumb, to help judges assess whether a single piece of uncorroborated evidence is capable of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt.

It happens that the “unusually convincing” test tends to crop up in sexual offences more often than in other types of cases, because in sexual offences, very often there is little to go on but the evidence of the complainant.

This is because such offences usually take place in private, out of sight of other potential witnesses.

What does it mean for the accused to be acquitted?

This brings us back to the current case. Although the judge acquitted the accused of the charges, this does not mean that the court found that the daughter had necessarily lied.

Rather, it simply means that the court did not have sufficient evidence to meet the required standard of proof — beyond reasonable doubt.

Indeed, the judge specifically said that the daughter “presented as a young witness trying her best to remember”.

However, the judge ultimately found that her evidence was not reliable enough to convict the accused upon.

“The question of whether a complainant is unusually convincing must be premised upon the reliability of her evidence. It may be that the passage of time, coupled with her youth at the time of the offences, made clarity and recollection difficult. Human memory can be frail; timely disclosure, effective investigation and prompt trial are pivotal in sexual abuse cases involving young complainants,” said the judge.

As there was reasonable doubt, the court was duty-bound to acquit the accused. Since the prosecution has decided not to appeal, the accused’s acquittal will stand.

While an acquittal in the face of serious allegations can understandably attract controversy, it is important to remember that the need for proof is a key safeguard against abuse.

That is the nature of our criminal justice system — to minimise the possibility that a falsely accused person suffers unjust punishment and irreversible stigma.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Alexander Woon is a lecturer at Singapore University of Social Sciences’ School of Law and a lawyer at RHTLaw Asia. He was formerly a deputy public prosecutor at the Attorney-General's Chambers.

Copyright 2024 MediaCorp Pte Ltd | All Rights Reserved

ADV: SAL-INSEAD Legal Leadership and Strategy Programme 2024 What will happen to assets surrendered in $3b money laundering case?: askST