R v Harding

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia heard an appeal by the appellant, Harding, against his conviction by a judge sitting alone for one count of robbery under section 137(1) of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA). The prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, with the central issue at trial being the identity of the offender.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence presented at trial.

The Court reasoned that the prosecution's case relied on the appellant being in the vicinity of the city on the morning of the offence, walking his dog off-leash, and having a similar appearance to the robber. While these facts might have raised a suspicion of guilt, the Court concluded that, on the objective evidence presented, a trier of fact must have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a verdict of not guilty was entered.