The presence of co-offenders in an extremely confined space during a sexual assault can give rise to an overwhelming inference of tacit agreement constituting a joint criminal enterprise, even absent direct evidence of agreement or specific sexual acts by the co-offenders. Acquittals on counts alleging specific acts of penetration by co-offenders are not necessarily inconsistent with a conviction for sexual assault in company based on joint criminal enterprise, where the acquittals can be explained by the imprecision of evidence regarding the specific acts rather than rejection of the co-offender's presence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.