- ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘sure’ are not clear and accurate descriptions of the criminal standard of proof and can mislead.
Twenty years ago, Professor Zander conducted a study that investigated what the general public and various types of lawyer thought was meant, in percentage terms, by being ‘sure’ of the guilt of an accused. Based on the results of that survey, he concludes in a recent article in this journal that there was agreement that a conviction requires overwhelming evidence (‘The criminal standard of proof: how sure is sure?’ 150 NLJ 1517; ‘The criminal standard of proof: how sure is sure? Pt 2’, NLJ, 29 May 2020, p18). However, there is a strong case for saying that ‘sure’, just as much as ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, the well-known alternative, is not fit for purpose.
The criminal standard of proof is a very high standard of proof. It has been well described as being ‘just one notch lower than
