In Re Solicitor-General's Reference (No 1 of 2023) [2023] NZSC 151 the Supreme Court addressed the question posed by the Solicitor-General:

“On the facts as set out in the Court of Appeal decision and the relevant documents on which guilty pleas were entered, did Mr Anderson's acquittal mean that Mr Darling could not, in law, have been convicted of the offence with which he was charged, despite his guilty plea?”

Mr Darling (D) had been convicted of aggravated robbery under s 235(b) Crimes Act 1961 following his guilty plea. His fellow offender Mr Anderson (A) had subsequently been acquitted of a charge under s 235(a) Crimes Act 1961 in relation to the same incident.

The relevant forms of aggravated robbery as set out in s 235 Crimes Act 1961 apply when a person

(a) robs any person and, at the time of, or immediately before or immediately after, the robbery, causes grievous bodily harm to any person; or

(b) being together with any other person or persons, robs any person; or

...

D had appealed his conviction and in Darling v R [2022] NZCA 504 the Court of Appeal had found that there was no reasonable basis for D's conviction (despite his plea) because he could not have been convicted of the offence when his fellow offender had been acquitted.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that D's conviction could not stand once A had been acquitted. The Court of Appeal had treated the acquittal as determinative and ignored other relevant elements such as the fact that D had pleaded guilty to a different offence from the one A had been facing. 

The Supreme Court said (at [62]):

"Mr Anderson's acquittal accordingly said nothing about Mr Darling's guilt. It was not correct to say that Mr Anderson's acquittal “draws into question whether there was a robbery at all”. The most that can be said here is that the jury was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Anderson was guilty of a different offence with different elements."