Tiwary v R

The appellant, Mr Tiwary, was convicted of the murder of two of his flatmates in a violent incident involving a baseball bat. The case was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The appellant argued that there were inconsistencies and implausibilities in the evidence presented against him, and that a reasonable doubt as to his guilt remained. The court was required to examine whether the evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to support a rational hypothesis consistent with the appellant's innocence.

The High Court found that the trial judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the inconsistencies and implausibilities in the evidence against the appellant. The court held that the evidence, while sufficient to support a rational hypothesis consistent with guilt, was also capable of supporting a rational hypothesis consistent with innocence. The court determined that the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, as the trial judge had not adequately considered the reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt. Consequently, the court quashed the appellant's convictions and determined that no retrial should be ordered.