R v Campbell; R v Waters (No. 2) [2023] NSWDC 627

R v Campbell; R v Waters (No. 2) [2023] NSWDC 627

No prejudice or embarrassment sufficient to warrant discharge of the jury or separate trial was established, as directions to the jury are assumed effective and Campbell is not prevented from raising the defence of duress.

Parties
Crown: The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: David Edward John Campbell; Accused: Tristian Egon Sebastian Waters
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Discharge of Jury and Separate Trial
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Discharge of Jury, Separate Trials, Duress Defence, Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Discharge of Jury Separate Trials Duress Defence Criminal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Crown

David Edward John Campbell

Accused

Tristian Egon Sebastian Waters

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Discharge of Jury and Separate Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether opening address by co-accused's counsel caused embarrassment and prejudice warranting discharge of the jury.
  2. 2 Whether separate trial should be ordered under s21 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

Ratio Decidendi

No prejudice or embarrassment sufficient to warrant discharge of the jury or separate trial was established, as directions to the jury are assumed effective and Campbell is not prevented from raising the defence of duress.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for discharge of jury and separate trial refused.