- 7 -
79
we consider that it was the only rational conclusion they
could have reached, and that there was therefore no mis-
carriage of justice.
We will now consider the points of alleged Misdirection
taking first the allegation that the Trial Judge in his
Summing Up did not state to the Jury with sufficient clearness
what the main defence was, namely, that one or more of the
children other than those seen by Mrs. Fairburn, were either
playing in the nullah or accidentally fell in-4k into the
nullah while throwing stones. We consider that the Trial
Judge dealt sufficiently fully with the defence as to leave
no doubt in the minds of the Jury what the actual defence was
and that there was no misdirection on this point.
It was further alleged that the 'rial Judge misdirected
the Jury in his Summing Up by a reference to the bruises on
Mary Pine's neck as being a piece of direct evidence of
considerable importance from the point of view of circumstantial
evidence.
There was direct evidence that she had those bruises,
bruises which Counsel for the Crown had suggested in his opening
might have been caused by the Appellant seizing her by the
neck to throw her into the nullah.
There was no evidence that he did so, there was in fact
no evidence of how the bruises were inflicted. The learned
Trial Judge informed the Jury that they should fit this piece
of evidence into the jigsaw of pieces, but warned them to pay
no attention to the suggestion made by Counsel for the Crown
as to how she came by them, and stated that there was no evidence
to support that suggestion, he left them with no explanation
as to how she came by them. de could give none. de merely
stated that they were of considerable importance from the
point of view of circumstantial evidence and the Jury were
left to form their own conclusions as to how they were caused.
We consider that there was no misdirection here.