A Jones v Dunkel inference is not mandatory even where the conditions for its operation are established; if a judge is comfortably satisfied on the evidence that a particular inference should be drawn, the rule does not mandate that an adverse inference should instead be drawn by reason of a party's failure to call a witness. The 'equivocal evidence' concept from Sagacious Legal does not impose a separate test but is simply part of the ordinary standard of proof on the balance of probabilities. An appellate court should accept a primary judge's explanation of his own reasoning process on remittal absent demonstrated error.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 23 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 23 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.