I can reassure Mr Hitchens that this “change of great importance” is no such thing.
Juries have for decades been directed that they must be “sure” of guilt in order to convict. “Beyond reasonable doubt” has not been used for as long as I have been in practice.
Juries have for decades been directed that they must be “sure” of guilt in order to convict. “Beyond reasonable doubt” has not been used for as long as I have been in practice.
As for the risk that juries are somehow applying a lesser standard, again, this is just fanciful. Walk into any Crown Court trial and you will hear defence advocates drone on about the importance of the standard of proof, the meaning of “sure” and how it is the highest standard.
Finally (for now - the silliness keeps hitting me in waves), jurors cannot choose unilaterally to “stand aside”. Volunteering yourself as too incompetent to serve on a jury just isn’t an option.
Also, while I have heard many inventive ways of defence advocates describing the concept of “sure” to a jury (eg “you wouldn’t let your child cross a rope bridge over a piranha pond unless you were sure it was safe”), “Y’know, like you’d be sure about a non-vegan pizza” is new.
It’s hard to capture how ridiculous his reaction is to something that is neither new nor substantively any different to what went before.
Here, for reference, is an extract from the Crown Court compendium, giving judges guidance on directing juries. judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…
Here, for reference, is an extract from the Crown Court compendium, giving judges guidance on directing juries. judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…
