Four major principles form the basis of Canadian criminal law.

1. There is an assumption of innocence (“innocent until proven guilty”).

This approach is the cornerstone of criminal justice in most democratic countries. It has a very practical outcome: the assumption that the accused is innocent. It means that the accused does not have to prove that he or she is innocent. Silence on the part of the accused cannot be interpreted as an admission of guilt.

2. The burden of evidence is on the prosecution. 

This second principle flows from the first one. The accused does not have to prove that he or she is innocent. Instead, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty. In other words, while the prosecution has the right to accuse a person of a crime, the prosecution also has the “burden” to prove the guilt. There are only two situations in which the accused has the burden to prove something:

• When the prosecution possesses evidence that is absolutely sufficient to show that the accused is guilty, in these situations, the defence may choose to begin actively collecting evidence to show that the accused is innocent.
• When the prosecution makes an assumption that the defence would like to challenge, for example, the Criminal Code assumes that every individual who has committed a crime is sane. Thus, if the defence argues that the accused is “innocent because of insanity,” then it is up to the defence to collect evidence and prove that the accused was not, in fact, of sound mind.

3. To get a conviction, the Crown must prove that an accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

• If there is any “reasonable doubt” about the accused’s guilt, then the court cannot convict.
• This is a difficult concept for Judges and Juries to apply. It is largely so because the evaluation of evidence, of “reasonableness,” and doubt is all subjective.
• At the same time, it is not a rarity that the court finds a person innocent because reasonable doubt exists.
• The main criterion to apply this principle is the answer to the question, “is the accused guilty?” If the answer is, “yes, beyond a reasonable doubt,” then the court convicts the accused. On the other hand, if the answer is “yes, most likely,” then the court must acquit.

4. The accused has a right to a fair and open trial. 

What constitutes a “fair” trial is a lengthy topic of discussion. In short, however, a “fair trial” is, primarily, a trial where the court observes all the procedural rights of the accused. This includes the right to full disclosure of all evidence the prosecution has against the accused, the right to defence and representation, and more. On the other hand, an “open” trial is a trial that anyone and everyone can attend. It is only in fairly rare cases that the Court makes a special order for closed proceedings, which are not open to the public. This is usually done to protect the interests of the victims or minors.