## Facts

- The appellant and the missing man, both Polish nationals living in England, were partners in a small farm business that had financial difficulties and internal disputes.
- In mid-December 1953, the missing partner disappeared and was last reliably seen on 14 December 1953; no body or physical trace of him was ever found.
- The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence suggesting the appellant knew what happened and attempted to create false explanations, including:
  - Multiple inconsistent accounts of the disappearance (including claims that the missing man went to Poland, was kidnapped, or went to a doctor), none supported by independent evidence.
  - An alleged request that another person impersonate the missing man.
  - Evidence that the appellant tried to persuade a witness to alter the date of a relevant event to a later date consistent with the appellant’s account.
- The Crown’s theory was that the missing man was dead, that the death was non-natural (violent), and that the appellant killed him and successfully concealed or destroyed the body.
- The trial judge permitted the case to go to the jury on circumstantial evidence alone; the jury convicted the appellant of murder.

## Issues

1. In a murder prosecution, may the fact of death and the criminal nature of the death (corpus delicti) be proved entirely by circumstantial evidence where no body is recovered?
2. Were the jury directions adequate in emphasizing that the jury must first be sure a murder occurred (not merely a disappearance) before considering whether the accused committed it?

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeal affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that the fact of death and criminal agency may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and production of the body or direct evidence of the manner of death is not legally required.
- The court concluded the circumstantial evidence was capable of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the missing man was dead, that his death was caused by violence, and that the appellant was the killer.
- The court approved the trial judge’s directions as sufficient, including the requirement that the jury acquit if any rational alternative explanation remained.

## Legal Principles

- In murder, “corpus delicti” means proof that (1) the person is dead and (2) the death was caused by a criminal act; it does not mean production of the physical body.
- Death and criminal agency, like other facts, may be established by circumstantial evidence if the proved circumstances lead to one conclusion and exclude rational alternatives.
- The proper jury direction is that jurors must be sure the crime occurred and that the accused committed it; verbal formulas such as “moral certainty” add nothing to the reasonable-doubt standard.
- The jury should first determine whether the evidence proves a murder occurred; only then should it consider whether the accused was the perpetrator.

## Conclusion

A murder conviction may rest on circumstantial proof even when no body is found, so long as the evidence permits the jury to be sure that the victim is dead, that the death was criminal, and that no rational hypothesis other than murder (and the accused’s guilt) remains.


Regina v. Onufrejczyk, [1955] 1 All E.R. 247 (Ct. Crim. App.)