R v Smith; R v Sagar

• 1. Criminal Law
  2. › Appeal and new trial
  3. › Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence
  4. › Circumstantial case
  5. › Whether jury could exclude alternative hypotheses consistent with innocence
  6. › Identity of border controlled drug where no drug located
  7. › Whether only rational inference was that drug was cocaine
  8. › Criminal Code (Cth), ss 11.5(1), 307.1(1)
• 1. Criminal Law
  2. › Appeal and new trial
  3. › Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence
  4. › Circumstantial case
  5. › Conspiracy to import border controlled drug
  6. › Joint intention
  7. › Whether each co-conspirator required to hold same intention as to identity of drug
  8. › Whether conviction requires proof all named co-conspirators shared joint intention
  9. › Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.5(1)
• 1. Criminal Law
  2. › Appeal and new trial
  3. › Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence
  4. › Circumstantial case
  5. › Silence of accused
  6. › Whether Weissensteiner reasoning applicable where accused persons with knowledge of facts were silent
  7. › Whether hypotheses consistent with innocence cease to be reasonable in absence of evidence to support them when evidence must be within knowledge of accused

Quick Take