In some ways, it is similar to a normal criminal trial – the prosecution puts its evidence against the defendant before a judge and jury in a courtroom.
However, perhaps the key difference, is that the accused does not play a part in proceedings, and does not even need to be in court.
That was the case with Eleanor Donaldson, who was not present on any day of the four-week trial in which evidence was heard against her and her husband.
However, in a trial of the facts the accused will be represented by a legal team and their lawyers can question the witnesses, challenge the evidence and make legal submissions on their behalf.
Ian Turkington KC represented Eleanor Donaldson during her trial of the facts, cross-examining witnesses and issuing closing remarks on behalf of his client towards the end of the trial.
Then there is the major differences in what the outcome can be in a trial of the facts.
Instead of being asked to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty, the jury are asked to decide whether or not the accused committed the offence with which they were charged.
The focus is on what they are alleged to have physically done – not their state of mind at the time.
In a normal criminal trial, a jury would be invited to decide whether or not a defendant had the mental faculties required to be guilty of the offence as well.
The standard of proof remains the same – a jury must be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed the acts alleged.
The accused cannot be convicted but they can be acquitted if the jury decide they didn’t commit the acts alleged.