Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Rodney William Bradley

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory against a verdict of acquittal entered by a trial judge in favour of Rodney William Bradley. The prosecution's case against Mr Bradley was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a trial judge is entitled to enter a verdict of acquittal under section 287 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (ACT) in a case relying on circumstantial evidence, if the prosecution has failed to exclude all other reasonable inferences inconsistent with the accused's guilt.

The Court of Appeal held that a trial judge is not entitled to record a verdict of acquittal on such a basis. The Court reasoned that in a circumstantial case, the prosecution is not required to negative every conceivable or possible inference that is inconsistent with guilt. Rather, the prosecution must present evidence that, when taken at its highest, excludes any *reasonable* inference inconsistent with guilt. The judge's role is to determine if the evidence, viewed in this light, is sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If it is, the judge should not acquit on the basis that other, less plausible, inferences remain.

The appeal was allowed for the purpose of answering the question posed, with the Court providing a negative answer as detailed above.