In a circumstantial arson case, glass fragment evidence showing the same refractive index as a broken door is insufficient to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt where no evidence is led as to the rarity or commonality of that glass type, and the accused's innocent explanation for the presence of glass is not investigated or disproved. Expert evidence that the fire was the result of human involvement 'either accidental or deliberate' does not on its own raise s 23 Criminal Code (accident), although it is relevant to the element of wilfulness.
The full text is available to signed-in members.