>[!INFO] Definition >In Sheperd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573, Dawson J said (at 579): >Circumstantial evidence is evidence of a basic fact or facts, from which the jury is asked to infer a further fact or facts. It is traditionally contrasted with direct or testimonial evidence, which is the evidence of a person who witnessed the event sought to proved. [[Circumstantial evidence.pdf]] - It is evidence which tends to prove a fact or set of facts via inference (Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207). - Circumstantial evidence can prove a fact beyond a reasonable doubt only if all other reasonable hypotheses are excluded. - Elements of offences may be established by inference (Sheperd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573) - "The probative force of a mass of evidence may be cumulative, making it pointless to consider the degree of probability of each item of evidence separately." - *Conjecture* is something that is merely plausible, but of no legal value. - *Inference* is a deduction from the evidence; if it is a reasonable deduction then it has validity of legal proof. - From Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352: - The difference between the criminal standard of proof in its application to circumstantial evidence and teh civil is that in the former the facts must be such as to exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence, while in the latter you need only circumstances raising a more probable inference in favour of what is alleged. - A #no-case submission made be made in a case based on circumstantial evidence (DPP (No 2 of 1993) 70 A Crim R): - If there is direct evidence which is capable of proving the charge, there is a case to answer no matter how weak or tenuous the judge might consider the evidence to be.