Beyond reasonable doubt: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 2: Line 2:
{{quote|“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”
{{quote|“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 <ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=Judicial+Studies+Board+guidance+standard+proof Let me google that for you]</ref>}}
:—Legal Studies Board guidance <ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=Judicial+Studies+Board+guidance+standard+proof Let me google that for you]</ref>}}
{{Quote|“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.”}}
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Miscarriages of justice]]
*[[Miscarriages of justice]]
{{ref}}
{{ref}}{{nld))

Revision as of 10:28, 28 July 2024

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
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:
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 [1]

“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.”

See also

References

{{nld))