Circumstantial Evidence Flashcards
What is ‘circumstantial evidence’?
Evidence that may prove a fact by inference
A circumstantial case does not require each piece of evidence to establish guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but rather that all the evidence be considered in totality to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
How can a court establish guilt in a circumstantial case?
Barca v the Queen - When the case against the accused rests substantially on circumstantial evidence, the court cannot find guilt unless the circumstances are “such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
*No reasonable hypothesis other than guilty
How should the court regard ‘circumstantial evidence’?
Shepherd v the Queen - Circumstantial evidence often works like the strands of a cable. Each strand is not of sufficient strength to hold the weight but the strands taken all together may be strong enough. The defence may break down each piece with an explanation but the evidence must be taken in its entirety.
What are the three (3) stages in relation to ‘circumstantial evidence’?
Stage 1: Admissibility in accordance with Section 55 - Whether it is reasonably open to find that the evidence is relevant
Stage 2: Prima facie - Whether there is at least one hypothesis consistent with guilty - Torrance v Cornish “only need one”
Stage 3: Beyond a reasonable doubt - Whether the only reasonable inference available is the inference of guilt - objective test
What is the process involved in reaching ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ with ‘circumstantial evidence’?
(1) Basic Fact: An individual piece of evidence about a fact
(2) Intermediate Fact: A single basic fact or combination of basic facts which go towards an element of the offence (proof)
(3) Ultimate Inference of guilt: A combination of intermediate facts covering each element which establish ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’
Provide an example of the circumstantial process.
In an assault matter:
(1) Basic Facts: CCTV shows accused in vicinity, description provided by victim and witness matches accused
(2) Intermediate Fact: Identity of “accused”
(3) Ultimate Inference: The accused is John Smith
