C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y to convey to the jury that they should only convict if they felt sure of the guilt of the accused.536 He further stated: I should be very sorry if it were thought that cases should depend on the use of a particular formula or particular word or words. The point is that the jury should be directed first, that the onus is always on the prosecution; secondly that before they convict they must feel sure of the accused’s guilt. If that is done, that is enough.537 Lord Chief Justice Goddard concluded: I hope it will not be thought that we are laying down any particular form of words, but we are saying it is desirable that something more should be said than merely “satisfied” – we think that the conviction should be quashed.538 In Regina v. Ching (1976), the Court of Criminal Appeals cautioned judges against any attempts to “gloss on what is meant by ‘sure’ or what is meant by ‘reasonable doubt.’”539 In Ching, the appellant was accused of theft from a supermarket. The accused put some grocery items into a shopping bag and some items in a trolley. When he reached the check-out point, he handed the bag to his girlfriend and paid only for the goods in the trolley. He was then stopped by the store detective, who called the police.540 During the jury’s deliberations, although the case seemed to be of a type tried every day in many criminal courts, the jury had difficulty in reaching a verdict. The foreman of the jury informed the judge: The problem seems to centre around the question of the doubts that we have. Several of you, yourself included, your Honour, saw fit to point out that, if we had any doubts, then we were to find him not guilty. It is on this particular point.541 It is not clear whether the jurors meant that they were merely telling the judge that they had doubts, or that they needed a clarification of what “doubt” means.542 The judge interpreted the comment as if the jury had asked for further directions, and instructed: It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charge on the whole of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt, it has been said, is a doubt to which you can give a reason as opposed to a mere fanciful sort of speculation such as “Well, nothing in this world is certain nothing in this world can be proved.” As I say, that Hepworth & Fearnley, at 603, (internal citation omitted). Hepworth & Fearnley, at 604. 538 Hepworth & Fearnley, at 604. 539 Regina v. Ching, 63 Cr. App. R. 7, 10 (1976) (hereinafter “Ching”). 540 Ching, at 8. 541 Ching, at 8. 542 Ching, at 8. 536 537 119