Colson v The King

The appeal concerned a conviction for offences including robbery and sexual assault. The appellant, Colson, accepted that the offences were committed by someone, but argued that there was a reasonable doubt as to his identity as the offender. The defence proposed three scenarios, each postulating an unknown offender, which were consistent with the appellant's innocence. The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including DNA and telephone usage, much of which was not challenged at trial.

The legal issues before the court were whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and whether the trial judge's reasons adequately supported the verdict. The defence argued that the complainants' descriptions of the offender were inconsistent with the appellant, particularly regarding ethnicity and shoe size. They also highlighted discrepancies in DNA evidence, although the defence ultimately submitted that the prosecution's expert evidence on this point should be preferred.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia dismissed the appeal. While granting permission to appeal on the first ground concerning the unreasonableness of the verdict, it ultimately found the verdict to be supportable. The court considered the defence's proposed hypotheses but found that they did not create a reasonable doubt when weighed against the substantial circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The court also addressed the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons, finding them sufficient to support the verdict.

Permission to appeal was granted on the first ground but refused on the remaining grounds. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.