Different verdicts for co-accused on the same count of armed assault with intent to rob are not necessarily inconsistent where rational bases exist to explain the difference, including different positions in a vehicle (affecting knowledge of a concealed weapon) and different quality of admissions in police interviews. The absence of evidence that offenders actually attempted to take property does not preclude a finding of intent to rob where the jury could conclude the lack of taking was explained by absence of opportunity.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
8 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.