City Research Online

Abstract

This article provides empirical support for earlier theoretical arguments that the current model for directing juries on the criminal standard of proof is inadequate and should be improved. Data from replies to a questionnaire completed by an unweighted total of 1,152 individuals eligible for jury service in England and Wales suggest strongly that jurors should always be directed as to the degree of probability that can and cannot justify a “Guilty” verdict. They also suggest strongly that juries should always be directed as to the kind of doubt that requires them to acquit and the kind that does not prevent a “Guilty” verdict. The data also suggest that: most jurors would not find it difficult to understand a definition of “sure” cast in terms of “a realistic doubt”; a direction which uses the “domestic analogy” is unhelpful and could lower the standard of proof; and jurors should always be directed that the standard of proof is not variable.

Publication Type:	Article
Additional Information:	© 2025 Sweet & Maxwell. This is the accepted manuscript of an article published by Sweet & Maxwell. Please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions for information on re-use.
Subjects:	K Law > K Law (General)
Departments:	The City Law School The City Law School > Professional Programmes
SWORD Depositor:	Symplectic Administrator

Export

Downloads