header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 May 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7888 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Criminal
printer mail-detail

The criminal standard of proof: how sure is sure? Pt 2

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
21521
Is it ‘being sure’ or ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’? Michael Zander on how the judge directs the jury…& what jurors think
  • Beyond reasonable doubt: confusing jurors.
  • Level of proof through history: a refusal to use percentage requirements.
  • Being ‘sure’: reasonable and unreasonable doubts.

On April 27, The Times informed readers that judges had been urged to stop using the phrase ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ because it ‘confused jurors’ (‘Judges told to drop reasonable doubt’: https://bit.ly/2zWyQ8S). In official guidance for the judiciary they were instead advised to tell jurors that they must be ‘satisfied so that they are sure’. The same story ran in other papers.

The story was incorrect. His Honour Judge Hatton (director of training for courts at the Judicial College) went so far as to describe it as ‘lazy and inaccurate journalism’ (email to the writer, 5 May 2020).

There has been no change. The Times quoted The Crown Court Compendium, published in December 2019,

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll