header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 February 2026 / Paul McKeown , Adrian Keane , Sally Stares
Issue: 8149 / Categories: Features , In Court , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Are you sure?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
242557
Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane & Sally Stares analyse the problems with the current directions on the criminal standard of proof
  • A new survey highlights a serious risk that jurors understand ‘sure’ as ‘absolutely certain’, and suggests that juries need more help on the types of doubt that require acquittal.
  • It also found that comparison with important decisions in life is confusing and dilutes the standard, and that juries may need a direction that the standard does not vary according to the seriousness of the offence.

In the most recent edition of the Crown Court Compendium (December 2025), the ‘Example’ direction on the criminal standard of proof remains unchanged from previous editions: ‘The prosecution will only succeed in proving that D is guilty if you have been made sure of D’s guilt. If, after considering all of the evidence, you are sure that D is guilty, your verdict must be guilty. If you are not sure that D is guilty, your verdict must be not guilty.’

The Compendium’s

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Partner joins residential real estate team

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Social housing team announces partner appointment

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll