R v Summers
1952 · 1 All ER 1059
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- The appeal was about the direction on the standard of proof. The judge had explained 'reasonable doubt' in a way that invited the jury to analyse what kind of doubt would do.
- Issue
- How should a judge tell a jury what means?
- Held
- Lord Goddard CJ said the jury should be told that they must be satisfied so that they are sure of the prisoner's guilt. A long paraphrase of 'reasonable doubt' is more likely to confuse than to help.
- Principle
- The criminal standard can be put as being sure. The phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt' remains the standard. The direction must make the jury understand it.
- Why it matters
- Walters and Ferguson are the later cases on the same practical question. Miller is the comparison with the civil standard.
Words and Latin in this note
- Beyond reasonable doubt
- The high standard of proof in criminal cases: the prosecution must prove guilt so that the tribunal is sure. It is short of certainty, and it is not a mere shadow of a doubt. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.