In new guidance for the judiciary they have been advised to tell jurors they should be “satisfied so that they are sure” a defendant is guilty before convicting.

The Crown Court Compendium, written by the Judicial College, tells judges they can drop the phrase.

“It is unwise to elaborate on the standard of proof, although if an advocate has referred to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, the jury should be told that this means the same thing as being sure.”

The Judicial Office said: “Judges may adapt their language to avoid difficulties some juries have with the phrase ‘reasonable doubt’.”

Matthew Scott, of Pump Court Chambers, told The Mail on Sunday: “I think ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is a good phrase. It’s more solemn and appropriate for a courtroom, and people understand it perfectly well.”

Others think the term “sure” is more confusing.

Penny Darbyshire, of Kingston University Law School, said: “I have long argued that the word ‘sure’ should be eliminated from the jury direction on ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. All it does is confuse jurors and send some jurors looking for absolute proof, which is impossible. There is plenty of evidence that it confuses jurors.”