Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt is the definition of a reasonable doubt – something to which you can assign a reason. It is sometimes said the sort of matter which might influence you if you were to consider some business matter. A matter, for example, of a mortgage concerning your house, or something of that nature.543 After this instruction the jury left the courtroom to deliberate, returning four minutes later with a verdict. The jury convicted the appellant by a majority of eleven to one of the first count of theft and acquitting him of the second count of theft.544 On appeal, the appellant argued that this jury instruction resulted in a lower standard of proof, because, upon receiving the instruction, the jurors were able to reach a final decision within four minutes, although they had spent hours discussing the first count.545 The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal.546 The Court reasoned that in most cases judges would be advised not to “attempt any gloss upon what is meant by ‘sure’ or what is meant by ‘reasonable doubt.’”547 The Court recalled that in “the last two decades there have been numerous cases before this Court, some of which have been successful, some of which have not, which have come here because judges have thought it helpful to a jury to comment on what the standard of proof is.”548 The Court noted that experience “has shown that such comments usually create difficulties.”549 Lord Justice Lawton stated that this case was exceptional: This is the sort of case in which, as I have already pointed out, the jury possibly wanted help as to what was meant by “doubt.” The judge thought they wanted help and he tried to give them some. He was right to try and that is all he was doing. He seems to have steered clear of the formulas which have been condemned in this Court such as “such doubt as arises in your everyday affairs or your everyday life” or using another example which has been before the Court, “the kind of doubts which you may have when trying to make up your minds what kind of motor car to buy.”550 The Court further stated that by the time a judge sums up the evidence, he has had an opportunity to observe the jurors and should choose the most appropriate words with which to make that particular jury understand that it must not return a verdict against a defendant unless it is sure of his guilt.551 The Court relied on Walters v. The Queen (1969).552 In Walters, Ching, at 8. Ching, at 8. 545 Ching, at 8. 546 Ching, at 11. 547 Ching, at 10. 548 Ching, at 10. 549 Ching, at 10. 550 Ching, at 10. 551 Ching, at 10. 552 Walters v. The Queen [1969] 2 A.C. 26 (hereinafter “Walters”). 543 544 120