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
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