[Nelson]

If the Crown doesn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the offence, the presumption of innocence is not displaced. So, Jake Virtanen is presumed innocent of the alleged sexual assault.

At the same time, the jury may have thought Jake Virtanen was more likely than not to have committed the alleged sexual assault and acquitted. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a lot closer to absolute certainty (100%) than a balance of probabilities (just over 50%).

No one will ever know with absolute certainty that Jake Virtanen did or did not commit the alleged sexual assault. The criminal justice system cannot give you that result.

(I should say that I did not mean to discount the Complainant’s version or the Accused’s version. I’m talking as someone who wasn’t there, obviously.)