Click here to obtain a Word version of this document for adaptation.
[This charge can be used where the only defence relied upon by the accused, or raised by the evidence, is that the accused was not the offender.
Where other issues are raised, use Charge: Armed Robbery (Extended) instead. ]
I must now direct you about the crime of armed robbery. To prove this crime, the prosecution must prove the following 4 elements beyond reasonable doubt.
One - the accused committed theft.
Two - that, immediately before or at the time of the theft, the accused either:
Three - the accused acted in that way in order to commit the theft.
Four - the accused had a [firearm / imitation firearm / offensive weapon / explosive / imitation explosive] with him/her at the time of the theft.
Facts in Issue
In this case the defence did not contest the evidence that someone [summarise evidence of armed robbery]. They agreed that these events occurred, and that the person who was responsible for them is guilty of armed robbery.  However, they denied that NOA was the person who acted in that way. 
Consequently, the only issue for your consideration [on this count] is whether or not the prosecution have proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that NOA was the person who [describe alleged conduct]. If you are satisfied that it was NOA who did those acts, you should have no difficulty finding all four elements of this offence to have been proved.
The evidence was [describe evidence relevant to identification]. Counsel argued [describe arguments relevant to identification].
[If not done elsewhere, include directions and warnings about identification evidence. See Identification Evidence and Charges: Identification Evidence for assistance].
To summarise, you have only one issue to decide in respect of this count. That issue is, have the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that NOA was the person who [describe alleged conduct].
If you are satisfied that they have, then you should have no difficulty finding all the elements of this offence proved. In such circumstances you should find NOA guilty of armed robbery.
However, if you are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was NOA who [describe alleged conduct], you must find him/her not guilty of armed robbery.
 Abbreviated charges should normally be discussed with counsel before being used. Caution should be exercised before using this charge over the objection of counsel.
 If this concession has not been made, care should be taken before abbreviating the charge in this way.
 This charge will need to be adapted if it is alleged that the accused was guilty on the basis of some form of accessorial liability. See Part 5: Complicity.
Last updated: 26 March 2009