Mohamed v R

In this matter, Mohamed appealed against his conviction for aggravated kidnapping and robbery in company. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Mohamed was jointly indicted with two other co-accused. Both co-accused were acquitted of the aggravated charges, but Mohamed was found guilty by a jury. The jury found that Mohamed played a significantly different role to his co-accused, and thus the verdicts were not inconsistent. Mohamed argued that his conviction for robbery in company was unreasonable, and that the trial judge should have directed the jury on an alternative non-aggravated count. Mohamed also argued that the trial judge was required to summarise all evidence for the jury in his summing-up.
The court held that the jury was entitled to find that Mohamed played a significantly different role to his co-accused, and thus the verdicts were not inconsistent. The court found that Mohamed's conviction for robbery in company was open to the jury, and that there was no error in the trial judge's direction to the jury. The court also held that there was no requirement for the trial judge to summarise all evidence for the jury in his summing-up.

The appeal was dismissed.