Where the Crown case of acting in concert is wholly circumstantial, the evidence must be capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt not merely that the accused agreed to a common purpose (such as debt enforcement), but that the agreement encompassed the specific criminal conduct charged (such as the use of weapons and violence). Post-offence conduct by the accused that is inconsistent with complicity — such as remaining at the scene, expressing surprise, and protesting the violence — may render the inference of prior agreement unreasonable. The case also illustrates how the conduct of an unrepresented accused in pursuing unfounded collateral allegations may distract the jury and contribute to an unsafe verdict.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.