USQ Law Society Law Review
Caleb Gaggi
Summer 2021
… [if] the circumstances appearing in the evidence give rise to a reasonable and definite inference: they must do more than give rise to conflicting inferences of equal degrees of probability so that the choice between them is mere matter of conjecture.49 As this inference is from facts that make it reasonably probable that the fact (that the alleged murderer left the room with a blood-stained knife because they used that knife to kill the victim) existed,50 but should those facts suggest that the original fact (that the alleged murderer had the blood-stained knife) may exist,51 then the facts must prove ‘a reasonable basis for a definite conclusion’ and ‘not go beyond mere conjecture’.52 This is because ‘an inference is a tentative or final assent to the existence of a fact’,53 and is what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle attempts to inform readers within his statements above, drawing the importance of perspective. This is paramount in determining the probative value of circumstantial evidence in demonstrating consciousness of guilt,54 and operates as the ratio decidendi in Bradshaw v McEwans where the combined weight of facts support relevant inferences as a matter of probability.55 Additionally, the case of Plomp v R highlights the sensitivity in weighing all circumstances to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt in that, There may be many cases where it is extremely dangerous to rely heavily on the existence of a motive, where an unexplained death or disappearance of a person is not otherwise proved to be attributable to the accused; but all such considerations must be dealt with on the facts of the particular case.56 This returns to the three elements of motive, means and opportunity underpinning the grounds of circumstantial evidence,57 however as is seen in the examples above, the mere existence of either of these three elements cannot in themselves be exclusively relied upon as being circumstantial against the material facts for, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle states above, a shift in perspective can establish an ‘equally uncompromising result of the same circumstance’.58
VII.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, circumstantial evidence should be treated with utmost caution for, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle eloquently states, ‘if you shift your point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different’.59 This concurrently functions to address Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s comment on the deceptive nature of obvious 49
Bradshaw (n 4) 5. Westlaw AU, The Laws of Australia (online at 28 August 2021) 16 Evidence, ’16.2 Proof in Civil Cases’ [16.2.290]. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 CR Williams, ‘Lies as Evidence’ (2005) 26 Australian Bar Review 313, 328. 55 Bradshaw (n 4) 5. 56 Plomp v R (1963) 110 CLR 234, [5] (Dixon CJ). 57 Heydon (n 11) [1140]. 58 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (n 2) ch 4. 59 Ibid. 50
30
