A jury's verdict of guilty of murder may be upheld where causation is disputed, provided the totality of the evidence — including the deceased's condition before medical intervention, expert evidence excluding alternative causes, gaps in eye-witness observation, and expert evidence that wounds are frequently missed at scenes — was capable of supporting the jury's finding beyond reasonable doubt. The case illustrates that the unreasonable verdict ground requires assessment of the whole of the evidence, not isolated analysis of individual categories of evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members.