Where the Crown ties itself to a specific formulation of a charge (here, simultaneous administration of three substances in a single vessel), the appellate assessment of reasonableness must be undertaken by reference to that formulation. The absence of key physical evidence (a vessel containing all three substances) combined with inconsistent toxicological evidence rendered the inference of guilt speculative rather than logical. A jury's acquittal on a parallel charge involving a different complainant demonstrates the jury's ability to differentiate between charges and may negate the need for retrial on those counts despite wrongful conviction on others.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.