Where the circumstantial matters relied upon by the prosecution are undisputed and the contest is about what inferences can be drawn from them, the circumstances are properly characterised as strands of a cable from which collective inferences may be drawn, rather than intermediate facts requiring individual proof beyond reasonable doubt. A direction that the jury must give the accused the benefit of the doubt where there are competing inferences does not contain the flaw identified in Knight v The Queen, provided it does not suggest the inferences must be 'equally open' before the benefit of the doubt applies.
The full text is available to signed-in members.