Miller v Minister of Pensions
1947 · [1947] 2 All ER 372
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- A widow claimed a war pension, saying her husband's disease was attributable to war service. The tribunal rejected the claim. The case is cited for Denning J's account of the standards of proof, not for pension procedure.
- Issue
- What does proof require, and how does it differ from the civil standard?
- Held
- Denning J explained both standards. Beyond reasonable doubt is a high degree of probability, short of certainty and short of a shadow of a doubt. A remote possibility that can be dismissed as possible but not in the least probable does not prevent proof. The civil standard is the .
- Principle
- The criminal standard is not a percentage and not absolute certainty. The civil standard is whether the fact is more likely than not.
- Why it matters
- Use it whenever a lecture turns the standards into numbers, or misspells the case as Milner at page 272. The report is Miller at [1947] 2 All ER 372.
Words and Latin in this note
- Balance of probabilities
- The standard of proof in civil cases, and the standard when an accused bears a legal burden: the court asks whether something is more likely than not to have happened. Open the note.
- Beyond reasonable doubt
- The high standard of proof in criminal cases: the prosecution must prove guilt so that the tribunal is sure. It is short of certainty, and it is not a mere shadow of a doubt. Open the note.
Also on Lanbuk
- Miller v Minister of Pensions in Lanbuk on the Law of Evidence
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.