Where a pathologist identifies multiple possible causes of death and concedes that combinations of those causes not including the accused's actions could have caused death, those alternative hypotheses are real (not remote) possibilities that the jury cannot rationally exclude, and a conviction for manslaughter cannot stand. The case illustrates the distinction between remote possibilities (as in R v Summers) and real possibilities consistent with innocence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.