Aggravated robbery — ingredients of offence of aggravated robbery — application to dismiss charge — whether jury could properly convict — R v Flyger [2001] 2 NZLR 721 — Parris v Attorney-General [2004] 1 NZLR 519 — R v Feterikia [2007] NZCA 526 — Crimes Act 1961, s 235(b) — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 147. The second defendant faced a charge of aggravated robbery under s 235(b) of the Crimes Act. His counsel applied to have the charge dismissed under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act, saying that a properly-directed jury could not reasonably convict him. The court noted that the aggravated robbery charge involves offending as a group. There must be at least two offenders physically present, acting on a shared intention to commit a robbery, and with each playing a definite part to accomplish it. Therefore the issue for the jury was whether the second defendant was complicit in a joint enterprise with his co-defendant. Counsel for the second defendant argued that when the theft occurred, he was not physically present, being in a different part of the property where the incident took place. Therefore a properly-directed jury would not be able to convict him of aggravated robbery. The court found that the evidence suggested that the second defendant played a role in planning the offending, and was physically present and proximate when it occurred. There was enough evidence to go to the jury, and a properly-directed jury could convict the second defendant on the aggravated robbery charge. The application to have the charge dismissed was declined. Judgment Date: 27 February 2018.