The Pemble obligation on a trial judge to put alternative hypotheses to the jury does not extend to all conceivable constructions of the facts. A hypothesis must have a rational basis in the evidence to be 'reasonable', and the obligation is primarily directed at matters of confession and avoidance (such as provocation and self-defence) rather than alternative factual scenarios in circumstantial cases. Where alternative possibilities were fairly before the jury through defence submissions and the summing up, the trial judge is not bound to formulate additional hypotheses.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.