Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

7.3.13 In Australia 29 :“…if there is evidence (even if tenuous or inherently weak or vague)which can be taken into account by the jury in its deliberations andthat evidence is capable of supporting a verdict of guilty, the mattermust be left to the jury for its decision. Or, to put the matter in moreusual terms, a verdict of not guilty may be directed only if there is adefect in the evidence such that, taken at its highest, it will not sustaina verdict of guilty”.7.3.14 The position in continental European jurisdictions, where cases are decidedeither without a jury or with the judge sitting with the jury, is not directlycomparable.Appeals7.3.15 In England and Wales, the Court of Appeal is tasked with allowing an appealagainst conviction if “they think that the conviction is unsafe” 30 . Thisreplaced an earlier test of “unsafe or unsatisfactory” or when there was anerror of law or material irregularity in procedure 31 . Nevertheless, the classiccase on the Court of Appeal’s powers is that of Lord Widgery, under the oldregime, in Cooper where he referred to the Court asking itself a subjectivequestion of 32 :“whether there is not some lurking doubt in our minds which makes uswonder whether an injustice has been done. This is a reaction whichmay not be based strictly on the evidence as such; it is a reactionwhich can be produced by the general feel of the case as the courtexperiences it”.29 Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 at 214-215; cf the reference to a “reasonable jury” in TheQueen v Bilick and Starke (1984) 36 SASR 321, King CJ at 335 and 337 followed in Parker v TheQueen [2007] NT CCA 11, Martin CJ at para 3730 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s 231 the changes being made by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 s 232 [1969] 1 QB 267, at 271296