R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 1787

R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 1787

The risk of unfair prejudice to Mr Afu from being tried jointly with Mr Caleo does not warrant separate trials because the jury can be adequately directed to avoid impermissible reasoning, and the circumstances are not as prejudicial as those in R v Pham.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Alani Afu
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Separate Trials
Outcome
Application for separate trial refused.
Legal Topics
Joint Trials, Severance of Accused, Prejudicial Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Joint Trials Severance of Accused Prejudicial Evidence Jury Directions

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Alani Afu

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Separate Trials

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Alani Afu should be granted a separate trial from Mark Caleo due to potential prejudice arising from evidence admissible only against Caleo

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of unfair prejudice to Mr Afu from being tried jointly with Mr Caleo does not warrant separate trials because the jury can be adequately directed to avoid impermissible reasoning, and the circumstances are not as prejudicial as those in R v Pham.

Court Disposition

Application for separate trial refused.

Orders

  • The application by the accused Afu for a trial separate from the accused Caleo is refused.