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
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
