Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane & Sally Stares analyse the problems with the current directions on the criminal standard of proof
- A new survey highlights a serious risk that jurors understand ‘sure’ as ‘absolutely certain’, and suggests that juries need more help on the types of doubt that require acquittal.
- It also found that comparison with important decisions in life is confusing and dilutes the standard, and that juries may need a direction that the standard does not vary according to the seriousness of the offence.
In the most recent edition of the Crown Court Compendium (December 2025), the ‘Example’ direction on the criminal standard of proof remains unchanged from previous editions: ‘The prosecution will only succeed in proving that D is guilty if you have been made sure of D’s guilt. If, after considering all of the evidence, you are sure that D is guilty, your verdict must be guilty. If you are not sure that D is guilty, your verdict must be not guilty.’
The Compendium’s guidance to judges when juries ask questions about how ‘sure’
