<P> In Canada, the expression "beyond a reasonable doubt" requires clarification for the benefit of the jury . The leading decision is R. v. Lifchus, where the Supreme Court discussed the proper elements of a charge to the jury on the concept of "reasonable doubt" and noted that "(t) he correct explanation of the requisite burden of proof is essential to ensure a fair criminal trial ." While the Court did not prescribe any specific wording that a trial judge must use to explain the concept, it recommended certain elements that should be included in a jury charge, as well as pointing out comments that should be avoided . </P> <P> The Supreme Court suggested that the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be explained to juries as follows: </P> <Ul> <Li> The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with that principle fundamental to all criminal trials, the presumption of innocence . </Li> <Li> The burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused . </Li> <Li> A reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice, and instead, is based on reason and common sense . </Li> <Li> Reasonable doubt is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence . </Li> <Li> Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty . It is not proof beyond any doubt, nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt . </Li> <Li> More is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty . A jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit . </Li> </Ul> <Li> The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with that principle fundamental to all criminal trials, the presumption of innocence . </Li>

Where does the phrase without a shadow of a doubt come from