4 ms·

Did you bother reading the ruling: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/15.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/15.html The ruling is not

by flexie 14y ago

Did you bother reading the ruling: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/15.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/15.html The ruling is not concerned with statistics as a mathematical discipline. The "balance of probabilities" is a legal term. Please read the court ruling, and then read the blogger's conclusion (summed up sarcastically in his last sentence) and tell me if you think he's right :-)

alan_cx 14y ago
'The "balance of probabilities" is a legal term.' So is "reasonable doubt", but I am yet to see a perfect definition of it. Indeed, in the UK a jury questioned its meaning, the judge got snottily arrogant over it and ditched the case, but still not proper definition, either from the critical judge or anywhere else in the legal system. Interesting to me that the judge was so unable to answer the question, that he ditched a whole trial. I am amused by legal arrogance that thinks every one else should fully understand all its weirdness and definitions. Especially having done some work in a solicitors office where I was the arrogant one getting irritated with most of the legal people not having even a basic understand of the computers on their desks...
- SEMW 14y ago
  > in the UK a jury questioned its meaning, the judge got snottily arrogant over it and ditched the case ... Interesting to me that the judge was so unable to answer the question, that he ditched a whole trial. If you're talking about Huhne & Pryce, that's just wrong. The jury was discharged because after 2 days of deliberations they told the judge that they couldn't come to a verdict (which 10 of them agreed on). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury . I don't know where you got the idea that the judge got defensive because he didn't know how to answer what reasonable doubt meant, but it's utter nonsense. It's a very common question for juries to ask. The appeal courts have debated several times what the best guidance is. The judge was following the current guidance, which is tell the jury to treat it as ordinary english words and refuse to give any more specific definition. If each judge gave their own favourite interpretation of what 'beyond reasonable doubt' means (e.g. p(false positive) < 5%, or whatever), then the standard of proof you'd be tried under would depend on the judge, which would be obviously unacceptable.

by flexie 14y ago

alan_cx 14y ago

'The "balance of probabilities" is a legal term.' So is "reasonable doubt", but I am yet to see a perfect definition of it. Indeed, in the UK a jury questioned its meaning, the judge got snottily arrogant over it and ditched the case, but still not proper definition, either from the critical judge or anywhere else in the legal system. Interesting to me that the judge was so unable to answer the question, that he ditched a whole trial. I am amused by legal arrogance that thinks every one else should fully understand all its weirdness and definitions. Especially having done some work in a solicitors office where I was the arrogant one getting irritated with most of the legal people not having even a basic understand of the computers on their desks...

SEMW 14y ago
> in the UK a jury questioned its meaning, the judge got snottily arrogant over it and ditched the case ... Interesting to me that the judge was so unable to answer the question, that he ditched a whole trial. If you're talking about Huhne & Pryce, that's just wrong. The jury was discharged because after 2 days of deliberations they told the judge that they couldn't come to a verdict (which 10 of them agreed on). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury . I don't know where you got the idea that the judge got defensive because he didn't know how to answer what reasonable doubt meant, but it's utter nonsense. It's a very common question for juries to ask. The appeal courts have debated several times what the best guidance is. The judge was following the current guidance, which is tell the jury to treat it as ordinary english words and refuse to give any more specific definition. If each judge gave their own favourite interpretation of what 'beyond reasonable doubt' means (e.g. p(false positive) < 5%, or whatever), then the standard of proof you'd be tried under would depend on the judge, which would be obviously unacceptable.