A trial judge directing a jury on the circumstance of aggravation of being 'in company' in a burglary charge must direct that the accused and one or both co-accused shared a common purpose to commit the relevant offence at the time the burglary was committed; a direction that merely leaves the jury to consider whether the co-accused were physically present is inadequate. Different verdicts as between co-accused on the same count are not necessarily inconsistent where the admissible evidence differs between them, particularly where co-accused records of interview are admissible only against the maker.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 8 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.