Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for amendments Nos. 1 and 11. The issue of the standard of proof to be used by the determination panel and the appeals officer being "on the balance of probabilities" has been raised by industry on a number of occasions, including on Committee Stage in the Dáil and on previous Stages in the Seanad. It was also raised during pre-legislative scrutiny. The legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is almost entirely confined to criminal trials and is not applicable to proceedings of a civil nature where the standard used is the balance of probabilities. This is the standard used for the points system and the legal position is that it is also the appropriate legal standard.

The standard of proof is ordinarily and overwhelmingly on the balance of probabilities in several cases. A higher standard of proof is required in criminal cases, which is that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This higher standard in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction is because so much more is at stake in a criminal case after a conviction, with a possible custodial sentence and the negative reaction of the public that is marked by being found guilty of a crime. The legal position further indicates that neither of the Crayden or O'Sullivan cases, which challenged a forerunner to this, SI 318/2020, was challenged successfully, and that the Supreme Court did not make any reference to "beyond a reasonable doubt" throughout those two judgments.The Supreme Court did not take issue with the balance of probabilities and the standard of proof in any of the statutory instruments it considered.