Thomas, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

Judge Dove delivered the opinion. On 5 June 2024 before The Court the Appellant pleaded guilty to count 3 (dangerous driving). The Appellant was tried on counts 1 and 2: count 1 (aggravated burglary) resulted in acquittal by the jury; count 2 (conspiracy to commit robbery), added at the start of the trial, resulted in conviction. On 18 July 2025 the Appellant was sentenced at the same court to three years six months' imprisonment on count 2 and a concurrent six months on count 3. The Appellant was granted leave to appeal against conviction.

The underlying events concerned a break-in to a domestic cannabis cultivation premises at [Number] Main Street in The City, The State on 6 May 2024, where 259 cannabis plants were present. Prior to that date, several co-accused (referred to here as Co-accused A, Co-accused B, Co-accused C and Co-accused D) communicated about stealing the crop. Cell-site evidence and vehicle movements indicated travel from London to The City in multiple vehicles. During the burglary a witness encountered intruders, some carrying weapons; a neighbour called the police. After the burglary, a white vehicle (a Vauxhall Zafira) left the scene. Police later stopped the vehicle; the Appellant was driving and was arrested. Material recovered from the vehicle and phone and other evidence (including Snapchat messages, ANPR, cell-site, doorbell footage and body-worn video) formed part of the prosecution case.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the jury's acquittal on the aggravated burglary count (count 1) rendered the conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery (count 2) unsafe or perverse.
2. Whether, on the evidence, the jury could properly infer that the Appellant had agreed that force would be used or threatened in order to steal cannabis (the mens rea element for conspiracy to commit robbery).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The acquittal on count 1 undermines the safety of the conviction on count 2; logically the jury must have concluded the Appellant lacked knowledge of the plan and weapons.
• There was no evidence from which the jury could properly conclude that force would be used or that the Appellant knew of any such intention; any such finding would be speculative.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution relied on co-accused guilty pleas, the Appellant's guilty plea to dangerous driving, Snapchat messages, witness evidence regarding weapons, the neighbour's call, police observations and body-worn video, ANPR and cell-site analysis, doorbell footage and the Appellant's silence in interview to establish participation and knowledge relevant to both counts.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the distinct elements required for conviction on count 1 (aggravated burglary) and count 2 (conspiracy to commit robbery) by reference to the written "route to verdict" provided by the trial judge. The court emphasised that the two counts, though arising from the same events, contain different ingredients and pose different factual questions for the jury.

For count 1 the jury had to be sure that the Appellant intentionally assisted or encouraged those entering the premises and that he knew they were in possession of weapons. For count 2 the jury had to be sure that the Appellant had agreed with others that force would be used or threatened to steal cannabis, i.e. that he shared an agreement to use force as part of the plan.

The court rejected the submission that acquittal on count 1 necessarily precluded a safe conviction on count 2. It held that the jury could rationally conclude they were not sure the Appellant knew of the presence of weapons once inside the premises (count 1) while nevertheless being sure that the Appellant had agreed to a plan to use or threaten force to steal (count 2). The court noted facts from which the jury could legitimately infer knowledge of a plan involving force—such as communication between participants during travel, the Appellant's role as driver from London to The City with participating passengers, and the totality of the surveillance and phone evidence—and concluded these provided an ample basis for the jury's finding on count 2.

Accordingly the court found no inconsistency in the verdicts and held the conviction on count 2 was neither perverse nor inexplicable; it was consistent with the jury following the judge's legal directions and answering the separate questions posed for each count.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The appeal against conviction on count 2 was dismissed. The jury's acquittal on count 1 did not render the conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery unsafe.

Implications: The conviction on count 2 and the sentence imposed remain in effect. The court indicated that no new legal precedent was established; the decision turned on application of established principles about distinct ingredients of separate offences and legitimate inferences for the jury to draw from the evidence.