R v Jessop

The appeal concerned a criminal conviction for indecent assault. The appellant, R v Jessop, was convicted in the District Court of South Australia. The prosecution’s case relied on four key pieces of evidence: the testimony of MB, who observed the appellant leaning over EB on a couch late at night; DNA evidence linking the appellant's hands to EB's DNA; a positive presumptive test for blood on the appellant's hands; and medical evidence concerning injuries to EB's genitals.

The central legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were whether the trial judge erred in her directions to the jury regarding the standard of proof, specifically concerning circumstantial evidence and the concept of a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, and whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. The appellant argued that the trial judge's remarks implied he bore an onus to prove a hypothesis consistent with innocence.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The Chief Justice, with whom Vanstone and Kelly JJ agreed, rejected the appellant's submission that the trial judge had reversed the onus of proof. The court found that the judge was entitled to assess the vagueness of the appellant's testimony against the expectations arising from her life experience, treating her as any other witness. The court concluded that the strength of the prosecution's evidence, comprising MB's testimony, the DNA and blood evidence, and the medical findings, did not leave them in doubt as to the appellant's guilt and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred, particularly when weighed against the potential evidence of the complainant, who was not called.