I am now going to turn to certain directions of principle, that is directions of law as to how you should approach certain aspects of the evidence in the case and certain other features of the material that has been laid before you. They are not directions as to how you should find the facts, but directions which the law requires me to give you as to how you should approach the matters for decision and matters on which the law requires your attention in these areas.
First, reference has been made from time to time about the nature of the evidence relied upon by the Crown. It is said to be circumstantial in nature. Sometimes, as you will readily appreciate, juries are asked to find the fact proved by direct evidence, for example if there is reliable evidence from a witness who saw a defendant commit a crime. If there is a video recording of an incident which demonstrates guilt or if there is reliable evidence of the defendant having admitted the offence. Those would be good examples of direct evidence. In the present case the Crown say that there are two witnesses who give reliable evidence that Mr. Park admitted this offence. Those witnesses give direct evidence as it is called. However, the defence say that evidence is unreliable and it will be for you to judge it, and I will return to certain points about that in due course.
On the other hand, it is often the case that direct evidence of a crime is not available, and the prosecution relies on what has been called in this case and called in common parlance circumstantial evidence to prove guilt. That simply means that the prosecution was relying on evidence of certain circumstances which they say when taken together will lead you to the sure conclusion that it was the defendant who committed the crime. Circumstantial evidence in the present case includes the state in which Mrs. Park's body was found, packaged in that dreadful parcel, and tied by someone with a degree of knotting expertise, which you may find Mr. Park has. It includes evidence that Mrs. Park was found submerged in a lake. Mr. Park, the Crown say, is an expert sailor with access to boats. Those are circumstances which if you accept them, say the Crown, contribute with other evidence towards a conclusion that Mr. Park committed the offence. The defence submit that you cannot be sure of guilt on the material presented.