What is the burden of proof required in criminal cases as established in the case R v Higgins?

In criminal cases, the burden of proof is set at "beyond reasonable doubt," which is a fundamental principle illustrated by the case R v Higgins. This standard requires that the prosecution must present evidence that leaves the jury with a firm belief or conviction in the defendant's guilt. Essentially, it ensures that there is a very high level of certainty about the defendant's culpability before a conviction can be achieved. The rationale behind this high threshold is to protect individuals from wrongful convictions, thereby upholding the principle of justice.

The other standards of proof, such as preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and probable cause, are used in different contexts. For instance, preponderance of evidence is typically employed in civil cases where the scale tips in favor of one side based on the weight of the evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is a higher standard than preponderance but is less strict than beyond reasonable doubt and is often used in certain civil proceedings. Probable cause is a standard used in law enforcement for obtaining search warrants or making arrests, but it does not apply to the trial process itself. Thus, the standard "beyond reasonable doubt" is correctly identified as the appropriate burden of proof in criminal cases.