The Standard Of Proof For 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' In Civil Procedure

Article 109 of the Interpretation of China's Civil Procedure Law stipulates the standard of proof which is ‘beyond reasonable doubt' in case of fraud,coercion,malicious collusion,nuncupative will,and bestowal.This article attempts to establish multilevel standards of civil proof.However,the legislature dose not have clear guidance on how the article should be applied.The reason given by the relevant authoritative commentary was not convincing,the attitude whether it is distinguishable from criminal law is ambiguous.All of the reasons above cause many problems in the application of this article.For example,a judge may pursue the high standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt' in form,ignoring the directive function to judges when the aim of finding facts plays an important role on the subjective initiative of the Judge.It is not precise enough for judges to deal with the relationship between article 109 and article 108 of the Judicial Interpretation of China's Civil Procedure Law.The judges still adopt the mode of thinking of constructing facts,which causes the verification function of ‘beyond reasonable doubt' not to take effect well,and it may cause judge's arbitrary referees.Therefore,the author tries to make the application of this rule as good as possible in practice.It mainly proposes suggestions on the application and improvement of article 109 of the Judicial Interpretation of China's Civil Procedure Law from the following aspects:The first part is the origin and definition of ‘beyond reasonable doubt'.‘Beyond reasonable doubt' is originated from Anglo-American law system,which arises from the protection of jurors from ‘the soul is cursed' and is driven by the limitation of human ability.There is no uniform definition of ‘beyond reasonable doubt' in Anglo-American law system.Its application is mainly carried out by judges' instruction to the jurors.Several common explanations of ‘beyond reasonable doubt' is ‘moral conviction',‘an analogy of major decisions in life',‘explained by quantitative methods',and so on.The second part explains the article 109 of the Judicial Interpretation of China's Civil Procedure Law.From the view of the policy and comparative law,this provision is rational to a certain degree.Raising the standard of proof in the case of fraud,coercion and malicious collusion will reduce the probability of that the contract will be confirmed invalid or canceled,and protect the security of the transaction.Raising the testimony of the oral testimony is mainly to maintain the stability of the inheritance,and at the same time to encourage the ancestors to divide the inheritance according to their own wishes more legally.Raising the standard of proof for bestow is to protect personal ownership.In Anglo-American law system,there is similar situation that improves the standard of proof for similar special facts.The third part is the application condition and dilemma of article 109 of the Judicial Interpretation of China's Civil Procedure Law.This article has indeed reduced the judge's recognition of fraud,coercion and malicious collusion to some extent.However,‘highly probability' proof standard is already very close to objective reality,and a gray interval has been established from ‘high probability' to ‘beyond reasonable doubt',which is reached ‘high probability' but still ‘authentic or unclear' for judges,so it will lead to the possibility for judges' arbitrary discretionary referees.Due to the lack of clear explanation in the legislation,the judges in practice have a rather confusing understanding of ‘beyond reasonable doubt'.It is not accurate enough for judges to deal with the relationship between article 108 and article 109 of the Judicial Interpretation of China's Civil Procedure Law.In addition,the dual mode system of the trials in Anglo-American law system provides a realistic possibility for verification function of ‘beyond reasonable doubt' standards.The individuals' differences among the jurors make ‘doubt' can be known to other jurors and those ‘doubt' can be discussed by jurors.However,on the background of the free evaluation of the Judges in civil law system,the judge may hide his ‘doubt' from his own self-protection,thus limiting the verification function.The fourth part is about the application and improvement of article 109 of the Judicial Interpretation of China's Civil Procedure Law.First of all,we must adhere to the basic status of the judge ‘conviction',and ‘beyond reasonable doubt' should be used as a tool to remind judges to be prudent.Secondly,the relationship between article 108 and article 109 of the Judicial Interpretation of China's Civil Procedure Law is that article 109 can only be applied under the legislative purpose of protecting transaction security,legal inheritance,and ownership.When legislative purpose of special cases conflicts to article 109's,article 108 will be applied.Thirdly,it should be clear that the standard of proof in civil justice is different from the standard of proof in criminal procedure.Therefore,when judging the facts,the judges should pay more attention to the important rules of fact finding in civil procedure,such as evidence rules,circumstantial evidence,experience,and prima facie Bowies.Furthermore,to promote the verification function of ‘beyond reasonable doubt',we must strengthen the operability of the standard.This can be achieved by assigning the tasks of ‘finding doubt' and ‘doubt exclusion' to the parties.Finally,in order to prevent the judges from having arbitrariness in the determination of ‘doubt',the arguments of this part must be reflected in the judgment and the reasoning obligations of the judgment documents should be strengthened.