3. What is circumstantial evidence?

3. What is circumstantial evidence?

Circumstantial evidence holds admissibility in criminal trials. Given that direct and unequivocal testimony from eyewitnesses is uncommon, the jury may rely on circumstantial evidence (e.g., evidence of motive, fingerprints, possession of recently stolen goods, etc.) to establish the elements of guilt or reach a verdict of not guilty. 

Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove or disprove a fact in issue. Instead, it indicates another fact, the truth of which enhances the probability of the fact in issue being true. The court evaluates the totality of the evidence rather than assessing each piece in isolation. According to the legal principle regarding the drawing of inference, while individual pieces of circumstantial evidence might not be strong enough to prove guilt on their own or raise reasonable suspicion, when considered together, they can lead to a strong conclusion of guilt.

In situations where a case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, the judge is not obligated to withdraw the case even if there is a reasonable alternative inference other than guilt that can be drawn from the established facts. The judge will only withdraw the case from the jury’s consideration if it is deemed unsafe for them to conclude that the defendant is guilty based on the totality of the evidence presented.

It is incorrect to assume that circumstantial evidence carries less significance than direct evidence, as it can be highly reliable and persuasive in proving a case. However, it is important that the fact-finding tribunal carefully considers whether the evidence upon which the prosecution relies to prove its case is reliable and whether it indeed proves guilt, or whether on the other hand, and should be careful to distinguish between arriving at conclusions based on reliable circumstantial evidence and mere speculation.

It is normally unnecessary to give the jury a special direction on how to approach circumstantial evidence. However, exceptionally, such as when the prosecution case is wholly circumstantial, it might be desirable or even necessary to give a special direction that no inference is to be drawn against the accused unless it is the only reasonable inference. This should include a summary of the defence case as to the disputed evidence, the identification of evidence which might rebut the inference of guilt, and the disputed inferences. Additionally, the special direction should always be provided in the context of the specific evidence presented and the arguments made during the trial.