The House considered the direction on the standard of proof. Lord Goddard said: ‘It is far better, instead of using the words ‘reasonable doubt’ and then trying to explain what is a reasonable doubt, to direct a jury: ‘You must not convict unless you are satisfied by the evidence that the offence has been committed’. The jury should be told that it is not for the prisoner to prove his innocence, but for the prosecution to prove his guilt. If a jury is told that it is their duty to regard the evidence and see that it satisfies them so that they can feel sure when they return a verdict of Guilty, that is much better than using the expression ‘reasonable doubt’ and I hope in future that that will be done. I never use the expression when summing up. I always tell a jury that, before they convict, they must feel sure and must be satisfied that the prosecution have established the guilt of the prisoner.’
References: (1952) 36 Cr App R 14, [1952] WN 185
Judges: Lord Goddard
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
(Times 31-Jul-98, , [1998] EWCA Crim 2516, (2001) 1 Cr App R 307) - Cited – Regina v Murtagh and Kennedy 1955
. .
((1955) 39 Cr App R 72) - Explained – Regina v Hepworth and Fearnley 1955
Lord Goddard discussed again the direction to the jury as to the standard of proof: ‘I think it is very unfortunate to talk to juries about reasonable doubt, because the explanations given of what is and what is not a reasonable doubt are so very . .
((1955) 39 Cr App R 152)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192063