HAMLYN - College of Social Sciences and International Studies ...

Criminal Justice
requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A recent study
on how ordinary citizens interpret the standard formula for the
criminal standard of proof ("you must be satisfied so that you
feel sure") showed that nearly three-quarters of the sample
thought it meant "you must be 100% certain". 11 If that really is a
widespread view it would go a long way to explain the fact that
juries have a higher acquittal rate. It would also suggest that the
formula should be changed.
The James Committee equally rejected the view that the very
small number of appeals from the decisions of magistrates
indicated general satisfaction with summary trial. ("There are
many reasons why a convicted person may choose or feel
compelled not to exercise his right of appeal although he
genuinely believes that the conviction or sentence is unjust". 12 )
The Committee declined to express a view as to the quality of
justice dispensed by the two levels of court.
The Runciman Royal Commission recommended that proper
research in the jury room should be permitted, but it seems
unlikely that that proposal will be implemented. 13 The prospects
of an empirical study being undertaken to compare decisionmaking
by juries and magistrates is even more remote.
The James Committee referred to various improvements in
summary jurisdiction, especially in regard to training of magistrates
and court staff and in the expansion of legal aid, and said
that continuing developments of that kind would "we hope go
at least some way to removing what may appear to many
defendants to be the unsatisfactory features of summary trial". 14
Developments of that kind have continued and are continuing.
There have, for instance, been important recent changes in the
11 J.W. Montgomery, "The criminal standard of proof", New Law Journal (April
24, 1998), pp. 582, 584. For further suggestions as to the reasons for the
difference in the acquittal rate see, for instance, P. Darbyshire, "For the new
Lord Chancellor—some causes for concern about magistrates" [1997] Crim.
L.R. 861 at 870-872.
12 op. cit., n. 6 above, at p. 19, para. 38.
13 Report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, Cm. 2264 (1993), p. 2, para. 8.
The Conservative Government in its Interim Response to the Royal Commission's
Report (1994) indicated that it was "sympathetic" to the recommendation
but that it was still considering the precise scope of such research. Even if
the deliberations of the jury could be recorded for research purposes it does
not follow that the same would be the case for the deliberations of the lay
magistrates.
14 op. cit., n. 6 above, at p. 20, para. 40.
54