The Court of Appeal held that the principle in [name withheld] v [name withheld] requiring judges to leave alternative verdicts to the jury is confined to cases where murder is charged and manslaughter is available - it does not extend to requiring judges to leave assist offender under s 325 as an alternative verdict. The Court also held that in circumstantial evidence cases, intermediate conclusions of fact need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt unless they are indispensable links in a chain of reasoning, and that post-offence acts and utterances of one co-offender are admissible against another where sufficient evidence of combination exists.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.