The phrase 'hypothesis consistent with innocence' is non-jury friendly language and need not be used where the trial judge has directed the jury that if there is any other rational inference or possible explanation inconsistent with guilt, the accused must be acquitted. A trial judge's statement that circumstantial evidence is 'not necessarily any less reliable than direct evidence' and 'in some cases can be more convincing' is a proper direction, at least in 'strands in the cable' cases. The 'lurking doubt' test from R v Spencer is not the appropriate test for unreasonable verdict appeals where no error in evidence or summing-up has been established. When sentencing for conspiracy, the judge must be personally satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of overt acts relied upon; it is insufficient to assume the jury's verdict established those facts.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.