Circumstantial Evidence

Question 1

What is circumstantial evidence?

Answer 1

Circumstantial Evidence is evidence that may prove a fact by inference.

It may be referred to as indirect evidence.

Question 2

What did the case of Barca v The Queen find in relation to circumstantial evidence?

Answer 2

Barca v the Queen – when the case against the accused person 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’

i.e. no reasonable hypothesis other than guilt

Question 3

What did the case of Shepherd v R find in relation to circumstantial evidence?

Answer 3

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 to hold the weight

– defence may break down each piece with an explanation but evidence must be taken in its entirety.

Question 4

What did the case of Torrance v Cornish find in relation to circumstantial evidence?

Answer 4

Torrance v Cornish found that a prima facie case exists even if an available inference is the innocence of the Accused.

Yeldham J held that a Magistrate should not rule there is no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case in such a circumstantial case.

Only need one hypothesis consistent with guilt - is there is at least one inference to be drawn consistent with guilt?

Question 5

What are the 3 stages where circumstantial evidence can be relevant?

Answer 5

• Stage 1 – Admissibility in accordance with Section 55
• Whether it is reasonably open to find the evidence is relevant
• Stage 2 – Prima facie – An available inference from circumstantial evidence must be guilt and whether there is at least one inference to be drawn consistent with guilt (Torrance v Cornish – Only need one hypothesis consistent with guilt)
• Stage 3 – Beyond a reasonable doubt – whether prosecution have excluded innocence
• Whether the only reasonable inference (objective) available is the inference of guilt

Question 6

How does circumstantial evidence assist with proving guilt?

Answer 6

Each piece of evidence does not need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - it is the totality of all of the evidence that is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question 7

What is the process of proving beyond a reasonable doubt?

Answer 7

Basic Fact: is an individual piece of evidence about a fact.

Intermediate Fact: a single basic fact or a combination of basic facts which go to an element or proof of the offence.

Ultimate inference of guilt: a combination of intermediate facts

= proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Question 8

What did the case of Peacock v The King find in relation to circumstantial evidence?

Answer 8

An inference to be reasonable must rely upon something more than mere conjecture… The bare possibility of innocence should not prevent a jury from finding the person guilty, if the inference of guilt is the only inference open to reasonable men upon consideration of all the facts in evidence.

Question 9

In relation to Stage 2 (the prima facie test) how is prima facie established?

Answer 9

Is one of the available inferences from the circumstantial evidence consistent with guilt? If yes, then prima facie is established.

Question 10

In relation to Stage 3 (Proof BARD) how is this established?

Answer 10

Have the prosecution excluded every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence? This is a question of fact for the jury/Magistrate.

When a Magistrate is asked to decide upon circumstantial evidence, they must look at whether there is any other reasonable hypothesis - this is an objective test or the view from a reasonable person.

Question 11

What did Dawson, J find in Shepherd v R (1990) in relation to circumstantial cases?

Answer 11

• …guilt should not only be a rational inference but should be the only rational inference that could be drawn from the circumstances: see R v Hodge (1838) 2 Lewin 227
• …whilst a direction of that kind is customarily given in cases turning upon circumstantial evidence, it is no more than an amplification of the rule that the prosecution must prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• As I have said, the prosecution bears the burden of proving all the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. That means that the essential ingredients of each element must be proved. It does not mean that every fact - every piece of evidence - relied upon to prove an element by inference must itself be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.