Spaulding v Tasmania

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, Court of Criminal Appeal, heard an appeal by the applicant, Spaulding, against his conviction for assault. The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence presented at trial. Specifically, the Court had to determine if any inference consistent with the applicant's innocence was reasonably open on the facts.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the circumstantial evidence, when considered as a whole, pointed overwhelmingly towards the applicant's guilt. The reasoning applied was that while individual pieces of circumstantial evidence might be open to innocent explanation, the cumulative effect of all the evidence excluded any reasonable inference of innocence. The Court affirmed that for an appeal based on the unreasonableness of a verdict, the appellate court must be satisfied that no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have reached the verdict. In this instance, the Court was not so satisfied.