Book contents
- Language and Justice
- Language and Justice
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1Introduction
- Part ICommunication and Legal Process
- Part IICommunication and Legal Profession
- 9‘Being Sure’
- 10Signposting Topics in the Cross-Examination of Vulnerable Witnesses
- 11The Ambivalence of Judicial Interventions at the International Criminal Court
- 12Discourse and Contingency in International Criminal Justice
- 13The Politics of Official Language Rights in the Multilingual Courtroom
- 14The Co-construction of Witness Statements in a Refugee Family Reunion Case
- 15Intercultural Communication in Migration Law Education
- Index
- References
9 - ‘Being Sure’
Judicial Practices in Directing Juries on the Criminal Standard of Proof
from Part II - Communication and Legal Profession
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 February 2026
Book contents
- Language and Justice
- Language and Justice
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1Introduction
- Part ICommunication and Legal Process
- Part IICommunication and Legal Profession
- 9‘Being Sure’
- 10Signposting Topics in the Cross-Examination of Vulnerable Witnesses
- 11The Ambivalence of Judicial Interventions at the International Criminal Court
- 12Discourse and Contingency in International Criminal Justice
- 13The Politics of Official Language Rights in the Multilingual Courtroom
- 14The Co-construction of Witness Statements in a Refugee Family Reunion Case
- 15Intercultural Communication in Migration Law Education
- Index
- References
Summary
The fairness of criminal jury trial is predicated on the jury being able to clearly understand and accurately apply the criminal standard of proof. Among legal scholars, there is a strong international consensus that the criminal standard of proof as a legal concept is a very high standard that must be met by the prosecution and judged subjectively by the jury after hearing and assessing all the evidence. There is very little consensus, though, on how best to convey this standard to the jury. In this chapter we consider the practice in the jurisdiction of England & Wales of using sure as an ordinary language legal synonym of beyond reasonable doubt. In doing so, we outline a set of legal-discursive practices that transform the notion of ‘being sure’ from a simple gut assessment to an immensely confusing legal prescription. These practices are then exemplified through a judge’s excruciating attempt to clarify the use of sure and the Court of Appeal’s misreading of the fundamental issue. The chapter ends with some recommendations.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language and JusticeCommunication in Legal Practice, pp. 129 - 141Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2026
References
References
Archbold, J. F. and Lucraft, M. (2025). Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
Clermont, K. M. and Sherwin, E. (2002). ‘A comparative view of standards of proof’. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 50, 243–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darbyshire, P., Maughan, A. and Stewart, A. (2001). ‘What can the English legal system learn from jury research published up to 2001’. New Law Journal, 150, 1439–1507.Google Scholar
Heffer, C. (2005). The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heffer, C. (2006). ‘Beyond “reasonable doubt”: The criminal standard of proof instruction as communicative act’. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 13(2), 159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heffer, C. (2007). ‘The language of conviction and the convictions of certainty: Is “sure” an impossible standard of proof?’ International Commentary on Evidence 5(1): Art.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heffer, C. (2013). ‘Communication and magic: Authorized voice, legal-linguistic habitus and the recontextualization of “beyond reasonable doubt”, in Conley, J. M., Heffer, C. and Rock, F. (eds.), Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 206–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heffer, C. (2017). ‘When voices fail to carry: Voice projection and the case of the “dumb” jury’, in Leung, J. and Durant, A. (eds.), Meaning and Power in the Language of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207–235.Google Scholar
Heffer, C. (2020). All Bullshit and Lies? Insincerity, Irresponsibility and the Judgment of Untruthfulness. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heffer, C. (2026). ‘The golden rule and the golden thread: The ethics of communicating the criminal standard of proof’, in Nick, I. and Blewitt, K. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Ethics in Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge, 206–224.Google Scholar
Horowitz, I. A. and Kirkpatrick, L. C. (1996). ‘A concept in search of a definition: The effects of reasonable doubt instructions on certainty of guilt standards and jury verdicts’. Law and Human Behavior, 20(6), 655–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judicial Studies Board. (1999). Crown Court Benchbook: Specimen Directions. London: Judicial Studies Board.Google Scholar
Judicial College. (2023). Crown Court Compendium Part 1: Jury and Trial Management and Summing Up. Judicial College. Accessed 12 August 2025.Google Scholar
Kagehiro, D. K. and Stanton, W. C. (1985). ‘Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof’. Law and Human Behavior, 9(2), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, A. and McKeown, P. (2019). ‘Time to abandon “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” and “Sure”: The case for a new direction on the criminal standard and why and how it should be used’. Criminal Law Review, 2019(6), 505–527.Google Scholar
McKeown, P. (2022). ‘Dreaded questions, doubtful answers and the trouble with “sure”’. New Law Journal, 13–14 (29 July), 7989.Google Scholar
Montgomery, J. W. (1998). ‘The criminal standard of proof’. New Law Journal, 148(6837), 582–585.Google Scholar
Solan, L. M. (1999). ‘Refocusing the burden of proof in criminal cases: Some doubt about reasonable doubt’. Texas Law Review, 78(1), 105–147.Google Scholar
Zander, M. (2000). ‘The criminal standard of proof: How sure is sure?’ New Law Journal, 150(6596), 1517–1524.Google Scholar
Cases Cited
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.