An alternative hypothesis consistent with innocence that was not raised at trial and is inconsistent with the compelling evidence of a sustained assault will not render a murder verdict unreasonable. Where the Crown case of a sustained attack is supported by forensic evidence, blood spatter, witness accounts, tendency evidence and the accused's inconsistent accounts, the jury is entitled to reject the accused's claim that only admitted blows were struck. A direction that was not sought at trial will not found a miscarriage of justice under Rule 4 where the omitted direction would have had no effect on the jury's verdict.
The full text is available to signed-in members.