FYI
Circumstantial evidence is evidence of circumstances which can be relied
upon not as proving a fact directly but instead as pointing to its existence. It
differs from direct evidence, which tends to prove a fact directly: typically,
when the witness testifies about something which that witness personally saw,
or heard. Both direct and circumstantial evidence are to be considered.
1.
To bring in a verdict of guilty based entirely or substantially upon
circumstantial evidence, it is necessary that guilt should not only be a rational
inference but also that it should be the only rational inference that could be
drawn from the circumstances.
If there is any reasonable possibility consistent with innocence, it is your duty
to find the defendant not guilty. This follows from the requirement that guilt
must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
1. A possible addition is: It is not necessary that facts in dispute be proved by direct evidence. They
may be proved by circumstantial evidence alone, by direct evidence alone, or by a combination of
direct and circumstantial: that is, both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable proof of
facts. So you should consider all the evidence, including circumstantial evidence.
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/86048/sd-bb-46-circumstantial-evidence.pdf