Circumstantial evidence is also one kind of evidence.
This type of evidence can be described in one line in this way – ‘He must have done it.’ Circumstantial evidence literally means considering the circumstances happened during the offense took place finding any kind of evidence that can later on change the trajectory of the trial.
So these kind of evidence carries the most weight in any kind of trial as it is the most neutral one. And to suffice, this kind of evidence must be relevant.
In a circumstantial evidence case, the jury should be pointed to the fact that the extrapolation of the accused must be the only realistically open facts before the jury which can return a verdict of guilty. In simpler words, there should be no conviction at all unless there is any reasonable and possible explanation that goes consistently with the innocence of the accused.
The jury should be made aware of the fact that if a conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused is sensibly open, then it must exonerate. It is not a question of which the hypothesis is and which is not.
It is unnecessary to point the jury in terms of 'no reasonably possible explanation' in every case because the notation is in the sense of a simple amplification of the requirement to prove guilt beyond any kind of reasonable doubt whatsoever.
It is totally permissible to direct the jury that circumstantial evidence is not necessarily less reliable than a direct evidence. Even in some cases it can be more reliable. While directing the jury about a circumstantial evidence case, the jury should not be directed to the point at any cost that they must not speculate or guess about matters not presented in the evidence. This is because the accused person does not have to point towards evidence of conclusion consistent with innocence.
It is not necessary for the jury to be made focused upon the fact that any inadequate police investigation eventually weakens a circumstantial Crown.
It is no longer the case that a jury must be told that a fact can only be relied upon in establishing a circumstantial case. If somehow that fact can be established beyond any kind of rational doubt, and until that fact is working as an intermediate step in the chain of reasoning, it will always lead to the conclusion of guilt according to the saying of law.
Inadequacy of Motivation
It is wrong to direct a jury that absence of motive is irrelevant. Lack of motive has been said to be of little weight. But absence of any motive should be taken seriously. That’s because if somehow it can be proved that there is absence of motivation in the accused person, then the new matter of thought comes by that why then the accused should go for committing any offense if there is no motivation. This fact, if proved, can radically increase the possibility of the accused of being not guilty.
Proof of Motivation
It has been held that motive must be proved beyond any rational doubt. According to the assumptions of the High Court, it still had to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that there is a motivation for committing the offense. This statement was doubted by the NSW CCA earlier.
Implements which might have been used in the crime are admissible, but not tools of crime which are used in the particular crime.
This article is just a summary of the subject matter being discussed and should not be regarded as a comprehensive legal advice for you to defend yourself alone. If you are charged with criminal offences, it is recommended that you seek legal assistance from criminal lawyers. Criminal lawyers Central Coast, Gosford Criminal lawyers ,
Disclaimer : This article is just a summary of the subject matter being discussed and should not be regarded as a comprehensive legal advice for you to defend yourself alone. If you are charged with criminal offences, it is recommended that you seek legal assistance from criminal lawyers.