In R v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35, the High Court ruled that when the prosecution’s case rests substantially on circumstantial evidence, a guilty verdict cannot be returned by a jury unless every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded by the prosecution.

R v Baden-Clay

Police formally questioned the accused in 2012. The accused was charged with his wife Allison’s murder and with interfering with her body.

Circumstantial Evidence

It applies when the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence instead of direct evidence.

Hypotheses of Innocence

The jury must be satisfied that all reasonable explanations consistent with innocence have been excluded.

Judge’s Duty

Where a case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the trial judge to put to the jury any matters upon the evidence that the jury could find for the accused.

About Post Author

Brian Walker

B.Acc., GradDipLegPrac, Juris Dr
Barrister & Accountant.
Former Criminal Defence Solicitor. Former Federal Prosecutor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions prosecuting Commonwealth crimes relating to drugs and child exploitation. Former Australian Federal Police member litigating proceeds of crime matters. Former Australian Taxation Office employee investigating offshore tax evasion matters.

Post Created by Jesslyn Duong, paralegal.

See author's posts