Where the prosecution's circumstantial evidence is equally consistent with the accused being a receiver of stolen property as with being the principal offender, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery. The rule in Browne v Dunn constrains a trial judge's ability to make adverse credit findings on matters not put to the accused in cross-examination, and on appeal, evidence not challenged in cross-examination cannot simply be rejected beyond reasonable doubt. The case also illustrates that an accused's evidence at trial does not narrow the range of available hypotheses where the alternative hypothesis (receiving) is independently supported by other evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.