The recent finding by District Court Judge Mark Heron that AFL “legend” Barry Cable had sexually abused children in the 1980s and 1998s needs to be considered in context. Barry Cable has never been charged by police with sexual offences. Judge Heron found that Barry Cable was a sexual predator in civil proceedings.
The Finding of Guilt & Fact Difference
The difference between a finding of guilt in criminal proceedings and a finding of fact in civil proceedings is, among a range of factors, determined by the standard of proof to be applied.
In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove its cases beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the highest standard in our legal system and the burden rests entirely on the prosecution. If the jury or judge sitting alone has any reasonable doubt on the prosecution evidence the accused is entitled to an acquittal. If on the other hand, the jury or judge is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proven its case then the accused is convicted.
In a civil case, the presiding judge must be satisfied with the balance of probability that the plaintiff’s case is made out. The burden rests on the plaintiff, the party bringing the case to persuade the judge that the evidence is more likely in favour of the plaintiff. In the Barry Cable case, Judge Heron essentially found that the evidence made it more likely that Barry Cable sexually abused the plainOff and awarded the plainOff costs in the sum of $818,700.00.
Two Main Neglected Matters
Two matters remain outstanding. The first is whether the plaintiff will ever see any part of the costs award. This is unlikely because Barry Cable declared bankruptcy before the proceedings commenced. And Second whether WA Police will prefer criminal charges against Cable. For any additional questions regarding any legal process connecting to the case, feel free to visit or contact Perth’s leading criminal lawyer.