Circumstantial evidence -The standard of proof required in criminal cases / Ahmad Khairi Khairuddin

This paper primarily deals with the standard of proof in
criminal cases where the evidence against the accused is wholly
circumstantial. The first chapter is the introduction to the
Paper. In that chapter, the distinctions between direct,
indirect and circumstantial evidence are laid out* The second
chapter deals with the principle as enunciated by Alderson B.
in R.v.Hodge in where the evidence against the accused is
wholly circumstantial, the jury must be satisfied not only that
those circumstances were consistent with his having committed
the act, but they must also be inconsistent with any other
material conclusion than that the prisoner was the guilty person.
That direction was followed by earlier Malaysian cases- In that
chapter too, the relationship between circumstantial evidence and
corpus delicti is also discussed. Chapter III deals with the
case of McGreevy v. Director of Public Prosecutions which held
that no such special direction is required. The chapter also
features the criticisms made against McGreevy's case by the
Australian and New Zealand courts. The position adopted by the
Malaysian Courts after McGreevy's case is also discussed.
Chapter IV inter alia deals with the case of Jayaraman & Ors
v. Public Prosecutor which followed McGreevy«s case. The
"irresistible conclusion test" as stated by Othman P.J.