charged. I take that matter into account at that general level. I do not think that it is permissible to go beyond that general level and, even if it is, it would not be permissible to go beyond that general level in the absence of evidence and there is no evidence here bearing on the extent of the increase in the likelihood in this particular case.
114 The applicant submits that the Court should also have regard to the following matters. First, he submits that the Court does not have "all the evidence available, that would ordinarily be available in a criminal trial, including a prosecutor with duties of disclosure and fairness". I address this submission in detail below. Secondly, he points to the fact that the Court is also being asked to find that Person 4 committed murder and that Person 11 committed murder. I take those matters into account. He also asks the Court to take into account that it is being asked to find that Person 12 gave an order that an Afghan male be shot. I take that matter into account. The applicant asks the Court to take into account the inherent unlikelihood of him committing murder and that that inherent unlikelihood increases when regard is had to the fact that the respondents' case is that he committed six murders. I take that matter into account. Finally, the applicant reminds the Court of the strength of evidence required and the presumption of innocence (Morley v ASIC at [752]; Neat Holdings at 450).
115 In the sections which follow, I have made a number of findings against the applicant which are extremely adverse. I am satisfied that the proof is clear and cogent and I have applied the above principles.
116 I address next two matters which are related to the applicant's submissions concerning the onus of proof with respect to the respondents' defences and the standard of proof. Those matters are that the Court is not bound to make findings one way or the other and that (so the applicant contends) there is such limited material before the Court that there is no appropriate basis upon which to reach a reasonable decision.
The Court is not bound to make findings one way or the other
117 There is no doubt that a court is not bound to accept the case of one or other of the parties. It may reject the case of both parties. In Kuligowski v Metrobus [2004] HCA 34; (2004) 220 CLR 363, the High Court said (at [60]):
In general, disbelief in a witness's evidence does not establish the contrary. Similarly, disbelief in the case presented by the moving party does not necessarily permit the court to conclude that the positive case of the opposing party is correct. In particular cases it may not be possible to reach a conclusion either way:
