A fingerprint on an instrumentality of crime (here, a knife used in a burglary), combined with compressed timeframe, geographic proximity of sequential offending, and general consistency of physical descriptions, is sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction for identity-based offences. An alternative hypothesis that the accused merely handled the object in innocent circumstances, without any positive evidence supporting that hypothesis, constitutes mere conjecture that the jury is not obliged to accept. The question whether an appellate court may draw inferences from the accused's silence that the jury was directed not to draw under s 41(2)(d) of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members.