Post-offence conduct of a co-accused (such as retaining a weapon, threatening police, and engaging in further violent conduct) may provide a rational basis for a jury to draw different inferences about the mental states of co-accused at the time of the primary offence, thereby defeating an inconsistent verdicts challenge. The parity principle is not engaged where co-offenders' offences occurred in materially different circumstances, one pleaded guilty, and the sentences formed part of different overall sentencing schemes.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.