Beyond reasonable doubt

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service. →Go uptown Editorial Board of the JCLR: Managing Editor: Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R. · General Editor: Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C. · Principle witness: Mrs. Pinterman Common law | Litigation | Contract | Tort | Click ᐅ to expand: Case notes Tell me more Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

The criminal standard of proof under English law:

“formerly described as “beyond reasonable doubt”. That standard remains, and the words commonly used, though the Judicial Studies Board guidance is that juries might be assisted by being told that to convict they must be persuaded “so that you are sure”

—Legal Studies Board guidance

“Are you trying to say you can’t convict anyone without direct evidence?”

“No, but I am saying it should be a lot harder, because without direct evidence you are dependent on probabilities.”

Circumstantial evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, and the perfect crime

Circumstantial evidence as “information that changes the prior probability.”

It may seem outrageous that it is possible to commit a “perfect crime”, but it remains the law of a land that a person who has committed a crime for which there is no direct for indirect evidence cannot be convicted of it.

We take direct evidence to be evidence of the actual commission of the crime in the form of eye witnesses videotape from audio tape, confessions and the like on our weather from participants in the crime or not credibility of direct evidence circumstantial evidence is anything that tends to support or refute the allegations

See also

• Miscarriages of justice