The Continuing Saga of the Chamberlain Direction: Untangling the Cables and Chains of Criminal Proof
Monash University Law Review, Vol. 23, pp. 43-76, 1997
University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law Research Paper No. 09-27
35 Pages Posted: 11 Oct 2009
Date Written: 1997
Abstract
In Chamberlain, the High Court indicated that circumstantial facts should be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to support an inference of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Subsequently, in Shepherd, the High Court held that this requirement has logical application only to essential circumstantial facts, links in a solitary chain inference, rather than the strands of a cable inference. This article analyses the distinction between the two forms of inference. While the logic of Shepherd is endorsed, the court is criticised for failing to overrule Chamberlain. As a result there is the risk that the illogic of Chamberlain will continue to permeate.
Keywords: courts, criminal law, criminal procedure, evidence, judicial reasoning
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation