The 'reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence' formulation of the criminal standard of proof may be used in direct evidence cases without constituting an error of law, though it is more appropriate to express the standard in the affirmative in such cases. Treating the absence of corroboration as a basis for rejecting a witness's evidence amounts to a reversal of the onus of proof and constitutes a material legal error. The question of whether error must be demonstrated on a criminal appeal from the Magistrates Court to the Supreme Court in the ACT remains open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.