351 INFERENCES 1 3512 CHARGE [THIS

351 INFERENCES 1 3512 CHARGE [THIS
36 – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND INFERENCES1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
8 MAKING INFERENCES NAME SUMMATIVE EXAM HOUR 1 WHAT

A LOCKER STUDY MAKING INFERENCES AND THEORIES REMEMBERING THAT
CHAPTER 6 MORE ABOUT INFERENCES INFERENCES IN EVERYDAY LIFE—WHETHER
DEDUCTIVE INFERENCES ALL CATS HAVE DANDER DANDER MAKES ME

•

3.5.1. - Inferences 1

3.5.1.2 Charge

[This charge should be given if the jury is required to draw any inferences in order to establish the accused’s guilt. It should be given in most cases.]

Introduction

As I have told you, you must base your decisions about the facts solely on the evidence. You will often do this by accepting a witness’s evidence about something he or she personally saw, heard or did – what is known as “direct evidence”.

However, this is not the only way in which you may determine the facts. You may also draw conclusions or “inferences” from facts that have been established by the direct evidence. That is, if a witness’s evidence convinces you that a certain thing happened, you may be able to conclude or “infer” from that fact that something else also happened.

This process of “drawing inferences” is something we do every day. For example, when we wake up in the morning and see that the ground outside is wet, as are all of the cars and trees in the street, we might “infer” that it rained overnight – even though we did not personally see or hear the rain.

Must Not Base Decision on Speculation

In a criminal trial, you are only allowed to base your decisions upon reasonable inferences. You must not base your decisions on guesses or speculation.

Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. Imagine you see me here in Melbourne at 5:00 this afternoon. You then fly to Sydney, and see me there at 8:00 this evening. In such a case, even though you did not see me on an airplane, it would be safe to infer that I flew there – because there is no other way that I could have arrived so quickly. You would be entitled to draw such an inference in a criminal trial.

However, it would not be reasonable to infer that I flew with Qantas. Such an inference would be unreasonable because I could have flown with another airline instead, such as Virgin or Jetstar. To conclude that I flew with Qantas would be to guess or speculate.

While we might be willing to act upon such speculation in our daily lives, it is not safe to reason in that way in a criminal trial. Because of the serious nature of a criminal trial, you must be very careful about the way that you reason, and only rely on reasonable inferences.

Standard of Proof of Elements

[Add the following shaded section where the jury might rely on an inference for proof of an element.]

[Note:

I have directed you that the only things that the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt are the elements of the offence(s). However if you are considering relying on an inference to find an element proved there is a further direction you must apply.

You must not rely on an inference as proof of an element of an offence, or of a fact which is significant in establishing an element of an offence unless:

First, you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the facts upon which you base your inference; and

Secondly, you are satisfied that this inference is the only reasonable inference to be drawn from those facts.

1 This document was last updated on 27 November 2008

2




DIFFERENTIATING OBSERVATIONS AND INFERENCES M 1 2 AKE TWO
INFERENCES ABOUT POPULATION VARIANCES C HAPTER 11 INFERENCES ABOUT
INFERENCES FOR BURR PARAMETERS BASED ON CENSORED … 169


Tags: charge --------------, [this, charge, inferences