What is the standard of proof in the criminal and the civil courts?

Even if the civil standard were to apply the result might not be much different. That is because neither standard is absolute. As Lord Denning observed in Bater v. Bater, [1950] 2 All E.R. 458 at p. 459: The difference of opinion which has been evoked about the standard of proof in these cases may well turn out to be more a matter of words than anything else. It is true that by our law there is a higher standard of proof in criminal cases than in civil cases, but this is subject to the qualification that there is no absolute standard in either case. In a widely quoted passage he then illustrated this concept. He said: So also in civil cases. The case may be proved by a preponderance of probability, but there may be degrees of probability within that standard. The degree depends on the subject-matter. A civil court, when considering a charge of fraud, will naturally require a higher degree of probability than that which it would require if considering whether negligence were established. It does not adopt so high a degree as a criminal court, even when it is considering a charge of a criminal nature, but still it does require a degree of probability which is commensurate with the occasion.