In determining whether a verdict is unreasonable under s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), the preferred formulation is whether the jury, acting reasonably, must have entertained a reasonable doubt — not merely whether the appellate court itself entertains a doubt. The jury's advantage in circumstantial cases extends beyond witness credibility to include the collective deliberative process of 12 jurors hearing evidence continuously. Where coincidence evidence is already before the jury as part of a joint trial, a challenge to the trial judge's ruling permitting the Crown to argue coincidence in address is unlikely to succeed where no challenge is made to the jury directions actually given.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.