Pickett v Tasmania

The appellant, Pickett, appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania against convictions for aggravated burglary and aggravated assault. The prosecution's case was entirely circumstantial, alleging that Pickett either committed these offences or aided and abetted their commission.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence presented at trial. This required the Court to consider whether the circumstantial evidence, including Pickett's conduct after the alleged offences, such as assisting other perpetrators and fleeing, was sufficient to exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence.

The Full Court found that while the evidence might have suggested Pickett's involvement in some capacity, it did not exclude a reasonable hypothesis that he was merely an accessory after the fact, rather than a principal offender or abettor. The Court reasoned that the circumstantial evidence, particularly concerning his post-offence conduct, did not unequivocally point to guilt of the primary offences. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions for aggravated burglary and aggravated assault, and substituted verdicts of guilty for the lesser offence of being an accessory after the fact.