C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y the trial judge in Jamaica gave the jury a long explanation as to what was meant by reasonable doubt, which was criticized upon the same lines as the jury instruction in Ching. The criticisms were considered by the Privy Council,553 which concluded: By the time he sums up the judge at the trial has had an opportunity of observing the jurors. In their Lordships’ view it is best left to his discretion to choose the most appropriate set of words in which to make that jury understand that they must not return a verdict against a defendant unless they are sure of his guilt; and if the judge feels that any of them, through unfamiliarity with court procedure, are in danger of thinking that they are engaged in some task more esoteric than applying to the evidence adduced at the trial the common sense with which they approach matters of importance to them in their ordinary lives, then the use of such analogies as that used by Small J. in the present case, whether in the words in which he expressed it or in those used in any of the other cases to which reference has been made, may be helpful and is in their Lordships’ view unexceptionable.554 Reasonable doubt remains undefined in British jurisprudence.555 Canada Similar to the courts in the UK, Canadian appellate courts have declined to define reasonable doubt. The following case illustrates one trial judge’s definition, which the Canadian Supreme Court held to be deficient. In Regina v. Brydon, the appellant was convicted of five counts of sexual assault.556 After commencing deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trial judge requesting further instructions concerning the definition of reasonable doubt. The trial judge instructed: (i) …if you believe that the accused is probably guilty or likely guilty but still have a reasonable doubt, you must give the benefit of that doubt to the accused; … (ii) …after examining all of the evidence you may be left with a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty or not guilty; … (iii) …if you are unanimous in that doubt you must give the benefit of that doubt to the accused.557 The Canadian Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, being satisfied that The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the court of final appeal for the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and for those Commonwealth countries that have retained the appeal to Her Majesty in Council or, in the case of Republics, to the Judicial Committee. See Judicial Committee, Overview, available at http://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/judicial-committee/ (last accessed 14 April 2016). 554 Walters, at 30 (italics in original). 555 See David Pannick, Jurors Who Are in Reasonable Doubt, Times (London), 17 January 1995, at 2. See also Thomas V. Mulrine, Reasonable Doubt: How in the World is it Defined? 12(1) Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. 195, 218 (1997). 556 Regina v. Brydon, [1995] 4 S.C.R., 253, para. 4 (hereinafter “Brydon”). 557 Brydon, para. 5. 553 121