In a judge-alone criminal trial in South Australia, the trial judge must address in reasons any hypothesis consistent with innocence raised by the defence; silence on the rejection of a competing hypothesis provides no guarantee that it was entertained and rejected. Where the inadequacy of reasons pervades the fundamental presuppositions of a fair trial — particularly the burden and standard of proof — the proviso in s 353 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) cannot be applied, even where the prosecution case is strong.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.