Canada
In Canada, the courts clearly believe that the expression "beyond a reasonable doubt" requires clarification for the benefit of the jury. The key ruling discussing this is R. v. Lifchus where one of the four issues addressed was whether a trial judge should provide a jury with an explanation of the expression. Following R. v. Brydon[4] the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Lifchus[5], answered in the affirmative. In part, they wrote "The correct explanation of the requisite burden of proof is essential to ensure a fair criminal trial..."
The Court then addressed the second of the four issues before it by providing a lengthy discourse on the elements of a proper charge to the jury regarding the concept of "reasonable doubt". The Court did not prescribe any specific wording to be used by a given trial judge, but rather made recommendations outlining elements that should be included in the charge as well as elements that should be avoided.
The elements that should be included in the charge were: [5]
the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with that principle fundamental to all criminal trials, the presumption of innocence;
the burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused;
a reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice;
rather, it is based upon reason and common sense;
it is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence;
it does not involve proof to an absolute certainty; it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt; and
more is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty ‑‑ a jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.
The elements to be avoided in the charge were: [5]
describing the term “reasonable doubt” as an ordinary expression which has no special meaning in the criminal law context;
inviting jurors to apply to the task before them the same standard of proof that they apply to important, or even the most important, decisions in their own lives;
equating proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” to proof “to a moral certainty”;
qualifying the word “doubt” with adjectives other than “reasonable”, such as “serious”, “substantial” or “haunting”, which may mislead the jury; and
instructing jurors that they may convict if they are “sure” that the accused is guilty, before providing them with a proper definition as to the meaning of the words “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
