In a circumstantial case, where the Crown invites the jury to reject the evidence of honest witnesses as mistaken but does not put the basis for that alleged mistake to the witnesses (Browne v Dunn), and does not subject supporting documentary evidence to forensic examination, the resulting convictions may be unreasonable where the unchallenged evidence supports a rational inference consistent with innocence. The Crown's failure to forensically test key documents or cross-examine witnesses on the basis for their alleged error left the jury to speculate, which was insufficient to exclude a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 8 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.