The standard of proof direction to juries needs to be reviewed, writes Michael Zander KC
- What does ‘sure’ mean? Two studies examine the different views as to what is meant by ‘reasonable doubt’—one linguistically and one numerically.
- This article examines those studies and concludes that an expert committee is needed to advise whether more could be done to assist jurors.
The standard of proof direction to juries in criminal cases has remained essentially the same for decades. Nearly 80 years ago, Lord Goddard LCJ said that a jury should be told in a criminal case that they must be fully satisfied of the guilt of the accused person and should not find a verdict against him unless they feel sure (R v Kritz [1950] KB 82, [1949] 2 All ER 406). The ‘Example’ direction in the latest (2025) Crown Court Compendium is much the same: ‘The prosecution will only succeed in proving that D is guilty if you have been made sure of D’s guilt. If, after considering
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=2c3eca9_1)
