Beyond reasonable doubt: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:—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?” | {{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.”}} | “No, but I am saying it should be a lot harder, because without direct evidence you are dependent on probabilities.”}} | ||
[[Circumstantial evidence]] as “information that changes the prior probability.” | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Miscarriages of justice]] | *[[Miscarriages of justice]] | ||
{{ref}}{{nld | {{ref}}{{nld}} | ||
Revision as of 10:30, 28 July 2024
|
The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
|
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.”
Circumstantial evidence as “information that changes the prior probability.”