Is it possible to be found guilty of a criminal charge yet still be innocent? What about the inverse—can someone be found not guilty for an act they did, in fact, commit?
Although they might sound like two ways to say the same thing, each term has its own meaning and implications in the criminal justice system.
Here, we’ll clarify how “not guilty” and “innocent” differ in Canadian criminal law. (Note: the Canadian approach has important differences from the U.S. system.) As experienced criminal lawyers serving Surrey, Abbotsford & Langley, our team knows how–and why–these distinctions matter, and we’re here to help you understand the legal system if you are facing criminal charges.
Definitions of “Not Guilty” vs “Innocent”
In casual conversation, “not guilty” and “innocent” are used interchangeably by many, but that doesn’t make it correct or accurate. Let’s start by breaking down what each means in Canada.
- “Not Guilty”: Legally speaking, in Canadian courts, “not guilty” means that the prosecution— referred to as “the Crown”—wasn’t able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This doesn’t mean the court has determined you’re innocent. It just means that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to be proven guilty of a certain criminal offence. So, a “not guilty” verdict lets you walk free, but it’s not the same as a declaration of innocence.
- “Innocent”: There is no finding of innocence in Canadian law because the burden of proof is fully on the state. Canadian courts don’t use “innocent” as a formal verdict in criminal trials, because the goal of a criminal trial isn’t to declare someone factually innocent; it’s only to see if the Crown can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Being found guilty means the Judge or a jury found that the Crown proved each of the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. This verdict requires the Crown to meet the high standard for a conviction. For the person found guilty, sentencing follows—this could be a fine, probation, or even jail time and a criminal record.
The Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof
The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of criminal justice systems around the world. It’s one of the key ideas that protects people from wrongful conviction and heavy-handed prosecutions.
- Presumption of Innocence: In Canada, everyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent. This principle is more than just a good idea; it’s a constitutional right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You don’t start a criminal trial “partly guilty” or with suspicion already hanging over you. The court has to start by treating you as if you’ve done nothing wrong.
- Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies with the Crown–it must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to find a defendant guilty of the crime in question. If there is insufficient evidence, the verdict must be “not guilty.” Even if the Judge or jury strongly suspects that the person committed the crime, that is not enough. The person on trial doesn’t have to prove they’re innocent—if the prosecution fails to prove each of the elements of the offence, the defendant walks free.
Implications of a “Not Guilty” Verdict
If someone is facing criminal charges, what are the implications of a “not guilty” verdict?
- Reasonable Doubt: If there’s any legitimate question about whether the defendant committed the crime, the judge or jury is required to acquit. This could be due to contradictory evidence, unreliable testimony, or weak arguments by the Crown. But—and here’s the catch—this doesn’t clear the person as innocent; it only shows that the case didn’t reach the level needed for a conviction.
- Double Jeopardy Protections: A “not guilty” verdict also brings in double jeopardy protections. Under Canadian law, you can’t be tried twice for the same crime. This is another fundamental right under Canada’s Charter, making sure that once a person has been found not guilty, they’re shielded from being dragged back to court on the same charge. That verdict is final.
Acquittal vs. Dismissal
An acquittal is the formal language for a not guilty finding. A dismissal or stay or proceeding is the Crown choosing not to proceed with the charges. At first glance, acquittals and dismissals might sound like the same thing, but they’re different in crucial ways.
- Acquittal: An acquittal happens when the court finds the evidence insufficient to convict. This means the trial went through its course, and at the end, the judge or jury concluded there wasn’t enough proof for a guilty verdict. You’re cleared of that specific charge, and it’s done.
- Dismissal: A dismissal, on the other hand, usually happens before or during the trial for procedural reasons, like if key evidence was mishandled. It’s like saying, “We’re dropping this case, at least for now.” The charges could technically be brought back if issues are resolved. So while an acquittal is more permanent, a dismissal can sometimes leave the door open.
Civil Liability After a Not Guilty Verdict
A “not guilty” verdict can keep someone out of prison, but it doesn’t necessarily protect them from civil lawsuits. Civil and criminal cases operate on different standards of proof, and the civil threshold is lower. While a criminal case needs proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a civil case only requires a “balance of probabilities.” The former is close to certainty while the latter is essentially 51 over 49 percent more likely. So even if the Crown couldn’t prove guilt in a criminal court, an individual might still face civil claims based on a lower standard of proof.
Essentially, being found “not guilty” doesn’t stop a possible civil suit from being successful. Saying that, a guilty verdict in a criminal court can often be used in a civil suit and so it is essential to get good legal advice before pleading guilty to a criminal offence that could have civil liability.
