In a conspiracy case relying on circumstantial evidence, the Crown must exclude any reasonable hypothesis that the accused conspired to commit a crime other than the crime charged. However, alternative hypotheses that amount to mere speculation and cannot rationally be inferred from the evidence need not be excluded. If some amplification of 'reasonable doubt' is desired in a direction to the jury, it should go no further than telling the jury that a reasonable doubt is one which they, as reasonable persons, are prepared to entertain.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.