Evidence showing only opportunity to commit an offence, without more, is insufficient to support a conviction where the timing of the offence cannot be ascertained and the case is not run on a similar fact basis. Discrepancies between timing systems (security alarms and surveillance cameras) do not render a verdict unreasonable where the discrepancy is explicable and the jury is entitled to accept that explanation. The functionality of bolt cutters is not a matter requiring expert evidence; a jury may assess this from its own examination of the exhibit.
The full text is available to signed-in members.