Where a circumstantial prosecution case rests primarily on fingerprint evidence and the accused advances an innocent explanation for the presence of fingerprints, the jury is entitled to weigh the probability of the innocent explanation against the totality of the evidence, including the number of prints, the number of items bearing prints, and expert evidence about the durability of fingerprints. The case illustrates the limits of the unreasonable verdict ground where the defence hypothesis, while not manifestly implausible, requires the jury to accept a complex chain of innocent coincidences.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.