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

See all articles by David A. Hamer

David A. Hamer

The University of Sydney - Faculty of Law

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

Hamer, David A., The Continuing Saga of the Chamberlain Direction: Untangling the Cables and Chains of Criminal Proof (1997). Monash University Law Review, Vol. 23, pp. 43-76, 1997, University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law Research Paper No. 09-27, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1483545

David A. Hamer (Contact Author)

The University of Sydney - Faculty of Law ( email )

New Law Building, F10
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW 2006
Australia

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
125
Abstract Views
1,068
Rank
405,255
PlumX Metrics