Otto v Tasmania

Otto v Tasmania concerned an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant, Otto, was charged with murder on the basis that he had instigated the commission of the offence by the perpetrator. The prosecution's case was entirely circumstantial, and a key issue revolved around Otto's state of mind during admitted discussions with the perpetrator. Further, the prosecution relied on Otto's post-offence conduct, including his assistance to the perpetrator and his subsequent lies, as evidence of guilt.

The Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania was required to determine whether the verdict of guilty of murder was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. Specifically, the court had to consider whether, on the totality of the evidence, it was open to the jury to exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with Otto's innocence.

The court reasoned that while the circumstantial evidence, including Otto's post-offence conduct, might have suggested guilt, it did not exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence. The admitted discussions, viewed in isolation or in conjunction with other evidence, did not definitively establish Otto's intention that the perpetrator should kill the victim. Consequently, the court found that the jury's verdict of guilty of murder could not stand. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction for murder, and substituted a verdict of guilty of being an accessory after the fact.