Abstract

Proof of allegations against persons running fo public office may not equate with that iin criminal prosecutions

Article

If a person is charged with an offence which attracts a penalty, particularly imprisonment, the onus of proof lies on the prosecution and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose is to ensure that an innocent person is not wrongly condemned and punished.

If the allegation relates to the fitness of a person who is running for public office, the purpose changes.   The object of protection is the integrity of the public office.  The person has the choice of running for it or not,

Because of the difference in purposes, there is no reason why the criminal onus and standard should simply apply.  If anything, if there would be a doubt of the fitness of the person to hold an important public office, it might be expected that the onus should be on him/her to dispel the doubt.  The standard should probably depend on the importance of the integrity of the office and the seriousness and strength of the allegation.