What is the difference between civil law and criminal law?

They answer different questions, involve different parties, use different standards of proof, and produce different outcomes.

Criminal law concerns conduct considered an offence against society. The case is brought by the state — in England and Wales usually the Crown Prosecution Service — against the defendant. The question is guilt, and the outcome is punishment: imprisonment, a fine paid to the state, a community order.

Civil law concerns disputes between parties — individuals, companies, sometimes public bodies. One party (the claimant) sues another (the defendant) over a wrong done to them. The question is liability, and the outcome is a remedy: damages paid to the claimant, an injunction, or an order to do or stop something. Contract disputes, negligence, employment claims, family matters and property disputes are civil.

The standard of proof is the sharpest difference.

Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt — a deliberately high bar, because the state is taking someone's liberty.

Civil cases require only the balance of probabilities — more likely than not, effectively above 50%.

This is why the same events can produce opposite results. Someone acquitted of a criminal charge can still be found liable in a civil claim over the same conduct, because the second forum requires far less certainty. It is not a contradiction; the questions are different.

Other practical differences: criminal cases use the language of prosecution, guilt and sentence; civil cases use claim, liability and judgment. Legal aid is more available in criminal proceedings. Criminal records arise only from criminal convictions.

Some conduct is both. An assault can lead to prosecution and a separate civil claim for compensation. Regulatory breaches often carry civil penalties alongside possible criminal liability.

General information about England and Wales.