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 often extraordinarily difficult to follow and it is very difficult to tell a jury what is a reasonable doubt. To tell a jury that it must not be a fanciful doubt is no real guidance. To tell them that a reasonable doubt is such a doubt as would cause them to hesitate in their own affairs never seems to me to convey any particular standard; one member of the jury might say he would hesitate over something and another member might say that that same thing would not cause him to hesitate at all. I, therefore, suggested in that case that it would be better to use some other expression, by which I meant that it should be conveyed to the jury that they should convict only if they felt sure of the guilt of the accused. In some cases the word ‘satisfied’ has been used. It is said that the jury in a civil case has to be satisfied and, therefore, one is laying down only the same standard of proof as in a civil case. I confess that I have had some difficulty in understanding how there is or there can be two standards; therefore, one would be on safe ground if one said in a criminal case to a jury: ‘You must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt’ and one could also say: ‘You must be completely satisfied’ or better still: ‘You must feel sure of the prisoner’s guilt”
Judges:
Lord Goddard
Citations:
(1955) 39 Cr App R 152
Citing:
Explained – Rex v Summers HL 1952
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 . .
Cited – Rex v Kritz 1949
The House discussed the extent of the direction required to be given to a jury as to the standard of proof required: ‘The only other point which has been seriously argued is that because the learned Common Sergeant told the jury that they must be . .
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.192065