The nature of the offensive weapon in an armed robbery charge under s 75A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) is a mere particular; variance between the weapon described in the indictment and that proved by the evidence will generally be of little moment provided the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the offender had with him an offensive weapon at the time of the robbery. Prosecutors' closing addresses that invite the jury to make assumptions, even if subsequently corrected, risk reversal of the onus of proof. A hypothesis consistent with innocence advanced for the first time on appeal, which was never put to the jury and stands in stark contrast to the defence case at trial, must be evaluated in light of the way the trial was conducted.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.