What does the case R v Starr clarify about the standard of proof?

The case R v Starr clarifies that the standard of proof in criminal cases is closer to absolute certainty than to the balance of probabilities. This distinction is crucial in the legal system due to the serious consequences that can arise from criminal convictions, such as loss of liberty. The principle requires that the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that jurors must have a high level of certainty about the defendant's guilt before they can convict.

This standard contrasts with the balance of probabilities, which applies in civil cases and requires that a party's evidence is more convincing than that of the opposing party. By reinforcing that the threshold in criminal cases is much higher, the court aims to protect the accused against wrongful convictions, underscoring the fundamental importance of thorough and convincing evidence in ensuring justice.

In summary, the emphasis on absolute certainty in criminal matters—as established in R v Starr—reflects the legal principle that it is better for several guilty individuals to go free than for an innocent person to be wrongfully punished.