› Unreasonable verdict — independent assessment of circumstantial evidence
Quick Take
1The requirement in Mitchell v The King that a JCE agreement include the possible commission of an intentional act of violence of 'the same general nature' as that which caused death is not a new element but merely articulates what is inherent in the general requirement that the crime fall within the scope of the parties' agreement; both the purpose and degree of violence may be relevant to whether the violence that occurred was fundamentally different from what was agreed.
2Where a defendant agrees to the possible use of a weapon to subdue an occupant during a robbery, it remains open on the facts for a trial judge to find either that the agreement was limited to subduing violence (excluding aggressive lethal force) or that it extended to violence of the same general nature as a fatal blow — different triers of fact may legitimately reach different conclusions on this evaluative question.
3On a Crown appeal against acquittal, even if the appellate court might on fine balance form a different view as to verdict, it should be reluctant to intervene where the only basis is disagreement on the ultimate factual inference, particularly where the consequence would be a further retrial.
