(Hong Kong) In reaching its conclusions it is open to the court to draw inferences from primary facts which it finds established by evidence. A court may not, however, infer the existence of some fact which constitutes an essential element of the case unless the inference is compelling i.e. such that no reasonable man would fail to draw it.
Lord Diplock said: ‘The requirement of proof beyond all reasonable doubt does not prevent a jury from inferring, from the facts that have been the subject of direct evidence before them, the existence of some further fact, such as the knowledge or intent of the accused, which constitutes an essential element of the offence; but the inference must be compelling — one (and the only one) that no reasonable man could fail to draw from the direct facts proved.’
Judges:
Lord Diplock
Citations:
[1978] UKPC 28, [1979] 2 WLR 433, [1979] AC 609
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Jabber CACD 2006
As to the case of Kwan Ping Bong, Moses LJ said: ‘Read literally, Lord Diplock’s dicta might be understood to be saying that an inference was only to be regarded as compelling if all juries, assumed to be composed of those who are reasonable, would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443355
