The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man charged with aggravated robbery despite the acquittal of his co-offender.
Kane Darling and James Anderson were initially charged with, among other offences, aggravated robbery causing grievous bodily harm. Darling pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery under s. 235(b) of the Crimes Act 1961 applies where a person "being together with any other person or persons, robs any person."
On the other hand, Anderson had been charged with aggravated robbery under s. 235(a), which applies where a person robs any person and causes grievous bodily harm. The court eventually acquitted Anderson. Darling appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal, arguing that Anderson's acquittal meant there was no reasonable basis for his conviction.
The Court of Appeal ultimately quashed Darling's conviction, finding that Darling's guilty plea to the charge under s.235(b) could not be reconciled with Anderson's acquittal because the acquittal drew "into question whether there was robbery at all."
The Solicitor-General raised the matter to the Supreme Court. The issue before the highest court was whether Anderson's acquittal meant that Darling could not, in law, have been convicted of the offence with which he was charged despite his guilty plea. The question required the court to consider the correctness of the Court of Appeal's analysis that Darling's conviction could not stand in light of the subsequent acquittal of the "other person" under s. 235(b).
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal's decision was wrong. The Supreme Court explained that the test to be applied where a conviction appeal is brought following a guilty plea is whether a miscarriage of justice will result if the conviction is not overturned.
The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal was wrong in its approach in considering the question of whether Darling could not, in law, have been convicted of the offence charged. While the Supreme Court recognised that a subsequent acquittal of a co‑offender could, in some circumstances, be relevant in a case involving an attempt by another offender to challenge a conviction based on a guilty plea, it must be addressed on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the overall circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal treated Anderson's acquittal as determinative, ignoring other relevant circumstances.
The court highlighted that Darling ultimately pleaded guilty to a different charge than Anderson's. The court pointed out that the offence of aggravated robbery may take several forms. Anderson was charged under s.235(a), and Darling was ultimately charged under s.235(b). The elements of the two offences are different. The court said that for Anderson to be convicted, the Crown must prove that first, he robbed the complainant, and second, he caused grievous bodily harm.
On the other hand, Darling was charged with robbery while "being together with another person or persons." The court emphasised that before Darling could be convicted, it was not necessary to prove that Anderson caused the wounds to the complainant, which was an essential issue in Anderson's trial.
The court found that the admitted facts to which Darling pleaded were sufficient to establish the elements of the offence of aggravated robbery under s. 235(b). Further, the charge against Anderson differed from the charge to which Darling pleaded guilty. Accordingly, Anderson's acquittal said nothing about Darling's guilt.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled it was not correct to say that Anderson's acquittal "draws into question whether there was a robbery at all". The court emphasised that the most that can be said here is that the jury was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Anderson was guilty of a different offence with different elements.
