R v McKeough

The appeal concerned a conviction for aggravated robbery and related offences. The appellant did not challenge his conviction for three counts concerning the dishonest manipulation of a machine using stolen bank cards, conceding that he was the person depicted in CCTV footage using these cards. However, the primary contention on appeal was that while the appellant admitted to using the proceeds of the robbery, the evidence did not establish that he was the actual robber. The case was heard by Kourakis CJ, Nicholson and Parker JJ.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the verdict of guilt for the aggravated robbery was unreasonable or insupportable, having regard to the evidence presented at trial. This required the court to determine if it was open to the trial judge, sitting alone, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the perpetrator of the robbery, considering the case was based on circumstantial evidence.

The court applied the principles established in High Court authorities such as *M v the Queen* and *Libke v The Queen*, which dictate that an appellate court must consider whether it was open for the fact-finder to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In a circumstantial case, the court reiterated the fundamental principle that guilt can only be found if the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. This means the inference of guilt must be the only rational inference, not merely a rational one, and must be based on more than conjecture. The court emphasised that all circumstances must be weighed together, and individual pieces of evidence should not be considered in isolation, as one piece of evidence may resolve doubts arising from another when viewed as a whole.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the trial judge had conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence and that it was open for the judge to reject the hypothesis that the appellant only became involved after the robbery. Therefore, the verdict was not considered unreasonable or insupportable.