Farshchi v The King [2025] HCA 46
F appealed against federal convictions on the basis that directions to the jury under state law diminished the criminal standard of proof7. The trial judge said ‘a reasonable doubt is not … an unrealistic possibility’.
The plurality (at [16]) said that the state law merely carved out things that ‘could not raise a reasonable doubt’ – appeal dismissed. Edelman and Steward JJ (at [58-60]) said ‘unrealistic’ in this context was used ‘only as a negative or exclusionary explanation to clarify or remove uncertainty’. After discussing generally the differences between definition and explanation, the two judges discussed the rationale for the criminal standard and its community context8.
This principle is from Episode 129 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
7 s 270.6A Criminal Code (Cth), s 64(1)(e) Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) resp.
8 [61-62], Brown 17 CLR 570 (584), Thomas (1960) 102 CLR 584 (604-605).