A trial judge's direction that if the jury rejects the accused's evidence and it does not raise a reasonable doubt, they 'will have been satisfied beyond that reasonable doubt that he is guilty' is fundamentally erroneous as it reverses the onus of proof. Such an error is of such a fundamental nature that it cannot be cured by otherwise adequate directions on the burden of proof elsewhere in the charge. The Libke formulation of the unreasonable verdict test does not depart from or substitute for the M v The Queen test.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.