I also found this on the Defense head of argument. I thought it might be helpful.
When the State relies on circumstantial evidence, it does so by seeking to rely on inferences to be drawn from the indirect or circumstantial evidence, so as to arrive at a conclusion that the only reasonable inference in the circumstances, is that the Accused intended to kill the Deceased.
The inference which the State seeks to rely on, would justify/support a conviction, only if:
“1) the inference sought to be drawn must be consistent with all the proved facts If it is not, the inference cannot be drawn.
- The proved facts should be such that they exclude every reasonable inference from them save the one sought to be drawn. If they do not exclude the other reasonable inferences, then there must be a doubt whether the inference sought to be drawn is correct
The onus is on the State to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond a
reasonable doubt. This means that the Accused is entitled to be
acquitted if it is reasonably possible that he might be innocent.
The Accused does not have to convince the Court of the truth of his explanations. The Court must be satisfied, not only that his explanation
is improbable, but that it is beyond a reasonable doubt false.
The Court does not have to believe the Accused’s version, still less has
it to believe it in all its details. It is sufficient if there is a reasonable
possibility that it may be substantially true.
The Court does not need to reject the State’s case in order to acquit the
Accused and it is not enough if the Accused contradicted other acceptable evidence. If there exists a reasonable possibility that his evidence may be true, he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
The evidence of the Accused cannot be rejected on the basis that it was
improbable just because it was not in conformity with the evidence given
by the State witnesses.
Contradictions in the evidence per se do not lead to the rejection of such evidence as the contradictions may simply be indicative of an error.
It is not sufficient for a witness to be credible, a witness must also be
reliable.
A witness may be credible or honest because of his/her own subjective beliefs, which he/she perceives to be correct.
However, the evidence of an honest or a seemingly honest witness may not be factually correct (and will therefore be unreliable) as it may either be contaminated by facts subsequently obtained or by his/her perceptions.
Unreliability is generally exposed when seemingly truthful evidence is in conflict with the objective facts or probabilities, or where the objective facts expose the incorrectness of the evidence or inaccuracies or improbabilities in the evidence.
Unreliability will overrule credibility (honesty).
Reliable and objective evidence serves as a safe measurement to weigh
the accounts of witnesses to determine whether the accounts of witnesses meet the requisite threshold in this case proof beyond a reasonable doubt
and in the context of circumstantial evidence, that the account given by a witness is consistent with all the proved facts to the extent that it excludes every (other) reasonable inference.
A false explanation by the Accused may not be sufficient to justify the
inference that he/she had the intention to kill the Deceased.
.