In circumstantial evidence cases involving fire, a trial judge must not withdraw from the jury the hypothesis of accidental fire where the evidence is consistent with that possibility, even if the hypothesis cannot be positively inferred. A direction that a hypothesis consistent with innocence must be 'equally reasonable' to one consistent with guilt is erroneous; the correct test is whether the hypothesis consistent with innocence is 'open on the evidence'.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.