The Court of Appeal held that where the prosecution case depends on inferential reasoning to establish identity, the standard direction on drawing inferences is sufficient without additional circumstantial evidence directions. When responding to a jury question about 'who to believe', the trial judge need not give a full Liberato direction if the charge already contains clear directions on the burden and standard of proof. The Court applied the proviso despite a potential error in the judge's response to the jury question, finding that acceptance of the complainant's evidence led inexorably to the inference that the appellant was the offender.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.
8 of the 15 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.