Burden of Proof in Sexual Harassment Cases

[Kladdkaka]

Can someone help me with my homework please. I'm learning about sexual harassment law. Can someone translate the following explanation of burden of proof into English for me?

'The burden of proof is that where the applicant can establish sufficient facts from which it can be presumed that there has been harassment'

Many thanks.

[sneezecakesmum]

The burden of proof is basically the facts of the case that can be 'proven'. In sexual harassment I would imagine the complainant would have to provide text messages, witnesses, multiple episodes etc. Its also saying that the proof does not have to be 'absolute' but sufficient so that the court can presume guilt from the evidence.

The 'burden' lies with the person bringing the prosecution as in English law, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Someone accused of SH does not need to 'prove' they are innocent as such, though of course they should provide evidence to refute the claims of the prosecution.

This is a fairly straightforward answer, were you wanting something much more legal and jargonistic?

[Kladdkaka]

Thanks for taking the time to answer. God no, I don't need a legal or jargonistic answer. I need it in dunce's corner English. I get where the burden lies, the bit. The bit I'm still struggling with is the 'sufficient' and 'can presume guilt'. I can't get my head round those bits. (standard of proof?)

'Presume' by dictionary definition means 'suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability'. How does that relate to balance of probabilities? I thought the standard for sexual harassment was supposed to be lower.

Arrrrrhhh, my brain is melting.