The case illustrates the application of the Pell v The Queen unreasonable verdict test to a circumstantial case where the accused was alleged to have counselled and procured co-offenders. A strong circumstantial case based on motive, opportunity, phone records, overheard statements, and post-offence conduct can sustain a conviction for counselling/procuring even without physical evidence placing the accused at the scene. A trial judge's reminder to the prosecutor to adduce formal evidence of lack of consent does not constitute impermissible judicial interference where the evidence could already be inferred from the complainant's testimony.
The full text is available to signed-in members.