Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt On appeal, Lord Chief Justice Goddard532 stated: I have never yet heard any court give a satisfactory definition of what is a “reasonable doubt,” and it would be very much better if that expression was not used. Whenever a court attempts to explain what is meant by it, the explanation tends to result in confusion rather than clarity. It is far better, instead of using the words “reasonable doubt” and then trying to say what is a reasonable doubt, to say to a jury: “You must not convict unless you are satisfied by the evidence given by the prosecution that the offence has been committed.” The jury should be told that it is not for the prisoner to prove his innocence, but for the prosecution to prove his guilt, and that it is their duty to regard the evidence and see if it satisfies them so that they can feel sure, when they give their verdict, that it is a right one.533 Summers demonstrates that it may be difficult to define reasonable doubt, and that attempts to explain it may confuse the jury, rather than clarify the term. Based on this, the Court of Criminal Appeals advised against defining the term and concluded that the better decision would be to stop using the expression. Lord Chief Justice Goddard reaffirmed his opinion regarding the risk of confusion in defining reasonable doubt in Regina v. Hepworth & Fearnley (1955).534 Noting that “[a] case is never proved if any jury is left in any degree of doubt,”535 Lord Chief Justice Goddard stated that it is more confusing for the jury to attempt to define reasonable doubt: Another thing that is said is that the recorder only used the word “satisfied.” It may be, especially considering the number of cases recently in which this question has arisen, that I misled courts when I said in [Summers] … that I thought it was very unfortunate to talk to juries about “reasonable doubt,” because the explanations given as to what is, and what is not, a reasonable doubt were so very often extraordinarily difficult to follow, and it is very difficult to tell a jury what is a reasonable doubt. To tell a jury that it must not be a fanciful doubt is something that is without any real guidance. To tell them that a reasonable doubt is such a doubt as to cause them to hesitate in their own affairs never seems to me to convey any particular standard; one member of the jury might say he would hesitate over something and another member might say that that would not cause him to hesitate at all. I, therefore, suggested that it would be better to use some other expression, by which I meant 532 Rayner Goddard (1877 –1971) was Lord Chief Justice of England from 1946 to 1958. Goddard was known for his strict sentencing and conservative views, and was nicknamed “The Tiger.” He once dismissed six appeals in one hour in 1957. See Allan Wingate, Lord Goddard: His career and cases by Glyn Jones and Eric Grimshaw (London, 1958); The Last of the Tiger, Time, 1 September 1958, available at http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863716,00.html (last accessed 14 April 2016). 533 Summers, at 1060. 534 Regina v. Hepworth & Fearnley, [1955] 2 Q.B. 600 (hereinafter “Hepworth & Fearnley”). 535 Hepworth & Fearnley, at 603. 118