The balance of probabilities *is* a burden of proof you walloper. It’s just a less demanding burden of proof than for criminal trials. A criminal trial also requires corroboration in Scotland: a standard not required in other countries and which is notoriously difficult to secure in sexual offences cases.
Let’s just remember what the judge said:
“Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence of the pursuer to be cogent, persuasive and compelling.”
“I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.”
”My general impression of the first defender was that, particularly in relation to his assessment of the pursuer’s condition, his evidence was given with a view to his own interests rather than in accordance with the oath which he had taken. I did not find his evidence to be persuasive.”
Bear in mind that the two men admitted that they carried out sexual acts on the woman in question. Their defence was that the acts were consented to. That they were merely total creeps.
They were complete and utter beasts, and the judge was in no doubt whatsoever about that. In all probability but for the archaic corroboration requirement, the reasonable doubt as to consent threshold would have been met for a criminal conviction and a jury would have found as such.
But still, if it makes you feel any better about funding the rapers of intoxicated women, by all means cling to the fact that it’s merely a judge in a civil court’s conclusion that the lying shits did it.