Where the Crown particularises a joint commission charge under s 11.2A of the Criminal Code (Cth) by naming a specific co-offender, it assumes the burden of proving an agreement with that named person beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence that two persons independently pursued the same criminal objective using the same instrumentalities (phone, email, false identity) is insufficient to prove an agreement between them where the evidence leaves open the reasonable possibility that both were separately instructed by third parties without communicating with each other. A new trial will not be ordered where the only basis for retrial would require substantial amendment to the indictment, including changing the nature of the charge or the identity of the co-offender.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.