F.22 – Circumstantial Evidence

Question 1

What is circumstantial evidence?

Answer 1

Evidence of relevant facts i.e. facts from which the existence or non-existence of facts in issue may be inferred.

Question 2

Is the weight attached to circumstantial evidence more/less than that to be attached to direct evidence?

Answer 2

Does not necessarily follow that the weight attached to circumstantial evidence will be less than that to be attached to direct evidence.

Question 3

According to Lord Simon in DPP v Kilbourne [1973] AC 729 p758, how does circumstantial evidence work?

Answer 3

‘by cumulatively, in geometrical progression, eliminating other possibilities’.

Question 4

What rope metaphor does Pollock CB use to liken circumstantial evidence to a rope?

Answer 4

A rope comprised of several cords - one strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of suffiecent strength.

Question 5

What is necessary before drawing the inference of the accused guilt from circumstantial evidence (as per Lord Normand in Teper v The Queen [1952] AC 480, p. 489)?

Answer 5

‘To be sure that there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference’.

Question 6

Is there a requirement, in cases in which the prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence, that the judge direct the jury to acquit unless they are sure that the facts proved are not only consistent with guilt but also inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion (McGreevy v DPP [1973] 1 All ER 503).

Answer 6

No.

Question 7

According to the guidance in the ‘Crown Court Compendium’, ch 10-1, in a case involving any circumstantial evidence, the judge should summarise any evidence and/or arguments relied on by the defence to rebut the evidence and/or the conclusions which the prosecution seek ot draw from it and give which three directions to the jury?

Answer 7

(a) to examine each strand of it and decide which if any they accept and which if any they do not and decide what fair and reasonable conclusions can be drawn from any evidence that they accept.

(b) not to speculate or guess or make theories about matters which in their view are not proved by any evidence; and

(c) to decide, having weighted up all the evidence, whether the prosecution have made them sure that D is guilty.

There is no requirement to use these exact words.