For decades, juries have been told to convict only if they are ‘sure’ of guilt. But what does that mean in practice? Writing in NLJ this week, Michael Zander KC, NLJ columnist and emeritus professor at LSE, argues the answer is alarmingly unclear
Drawing on two empirical studies—one linguistic, one numerical—Zander reveals striking inconsistency. In a recent survey, 76% chose ‘absolutely certain’ as the threshold for guilt, while 51% said ‘any doubt at all’ should lead to acquittal. His own earlier research found that around half of the public required 100% certainty before convicting, with ‘over three quarters’ demanding at least 90%. Even judges and barristers were divided.
The findings suggest juries are ‘all over the place’ in interpreting the criminal standard. Zander’s conclusion is pointed: an expert, cross-disciplinary committee should review whether clearer guidance is needed to prevent miscarriages rooted in misunderstanding.
RELATED ARTICLES
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=2c3eca9_1)
