Circumstantial Evidence in UK Law
-
Jsc Bta Bank (Respondent / Claimant) v Mukhtar Ablyazov
“
It is, however, the essence of a successful case of circumstantial evidence that the whole is stronger than individual parts. That is why a jury is often directed to avoid piecemeal consideration of a circumstantial case: R v. Hillier (2007) 233 ALR 63 (HCA), cited in Archbold 2012 at para 10–3. Or, as Lord Simon of Glaisdale put it in R v. Kilbourne [1973] AC 729 at 758, The matter is well put in Shepherd v. The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 (HCA) at 579/580 (but also passim):
-
Bally Sheng Balson v The State
“
But their Lordships are of the opinion that a good character direction would have made no difference to the result in this case. In these circumstances the issues about the appellant's propensity to violent conduct and his credibility, as to which a good character reference might have been of assistance, are wholly outweighed by the nature and coherence of the circumstantial evidence.
-
R v Saqib Jabber
“
The correct approach is to ask whether a reasonable jury, properly directed, would be entitled to draw an adverse inference. To draw an adverse inference from a combination of factual circumstances necessarily does involve the rejection of all realistic possibilities consistent with innocence. The correct test is the conventional test of what a reasonable jury would be entitled to conclude.
-
JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov
“
-
Brown v The State
“
It is well established that the omission of a good character direction is not necessarily fatal to the fairness of the trial or to the safety of a conviction— Jagdeo Singh's case [2006] 1 WLR 146 para 25 and Bhola v The State [2006] UKPC 9, paras 14–17.
-
McGreevy v DPP
“
It requires no more than ordinary commonsense for a jury to understand that if one suggested inference from an accepted piece of evidence leads to a conclusion of guilt and another suggested inference to a conclusion of innocence a jury could not on that piece of evidence alone be satisfied of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt unless they wholly rejected and excluded the latter suggestion.
-
R v Goring (Curtis)
“
As to the primary ground of appeal, the traditional approach identified by Lord Lane CJ in R v. Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039 (if a reasonable jury properly directed could not on the evidence find the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt) concerned the weight to be attached to evidence implicating the defendant upon which the Crown relied.
-
Naval Courts-Martial General Orders (Royal Navy) 1991
... ... circumstantial letter” means letter outlining the prosecution case drafted underOrder ... Criminal Justice Act 1967 4 as modified by the Courts-Martial (Evidence) Regulations 1967 5 ... S-4 ... Reference of charges to convening ... ...
-
Naval Courts-Martial (Procedure) Order, 1957
... ... through the usual channels a letter, hereinafter called the circumstantial letter, reporting the circumstances on which the charge or charges are ... (On evidence of negligence arising during the trial but not alleged in the ... ...
-
Naval Courts-Martial (Procedure) Order, 1953
... ... through the usual channels a letter, hereinafter called the circumstantial letter, reporting the circumstances on which the charge or charges are ... (c) A summary of evidence in support of the charges ... And when the offender is below the rank ... ...
-
Case Note: Lynton Exports (Alsager) Ltd v Revenue And Customs Commissioners [2022] UKFTT 00224 (TC)
... ... provision of detailed taxpayer evidence (including as to market ... opportunities and market characteristics) can ... question. It is possible to infer relevant facts from ... circumstantial evidence, but that circumstantial evidence must ... exist and be presented ... ...
-
Fraudlent Claim - UK Insurance Ltd v Gentry
... ... facts, with Teare J acknowledging that "There is rarely direct evidence of fraud. Where there is no direct evidence of fraud it can only be ed from circumstantial evidence", with particular assistance often being gained from ... ...
-
National Bank Trust v Ilya Yurov: "a Ponzi scheme with a fancy name" – Proving Fraud in the English Courts
National Bank Trust v Ilya Yurov & Ors [2020] EWHC 100 (Comm) provides a useful insight to the English Court's approach to pleading and evidencing fraud, emphasising the importance of properly part...... ... the importance of properly particularised claims and documentary evidence ... The English Court rightly adopts a rigorous approach to allegations ... Circumstantial evidence ... Circumstantial evidence is cumulative in nature and is ... ...
-
Contracts - Employee Entitled to Summary Judgment for Bonus Payment
... ... for this sum without the court hearing all relevant circumstantial evidence. Further, it was suggested that the employee had, by his conduct, ... ...