Do Juries Understand the Criminal Standard of Proof of Beyond Reasonable Doubt?

The High Court has stated that it is both unnecessary and unwise for a trial judge to seek to explain to the jury the meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt", on the ground that the phrase is well understood in the community. This article respectfully disagrees with the High Court's position and argues that Victoria has taken the appropriate course in enacting ss 63-64 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic). However, it is contended that both ss 63 and 64 can be improved by removing the requirement that an explanation of the phrase "proof beyond reasonable doubt" may only occur in response to a direct or indirect jury question. The argument is developed in the context of a number of sexual assault cases where the guilty verdicts have been overturned on appeal.