R v Bloodsworth; R v Errington (No 1) [2017] NSWSC 1482
The potential prejudice to accused Errington arising from evidence admissible only against the co-accused Bloodsworth can be adequately addressed by careful jury directions; there was no basis to conclude Errington could not receive a fair trial jointly, and the conduct of counsel binds the accused concerning evidentiary decisions.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 19 October 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Application for Separate Trial During Joint Murder Trial
- Outcome
- Application for separate trial refused
- Legal Topics
- ['separate Trial Application' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'evidence Admissibility' 'jury Direction' 'counsel Conduct']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Separate Trial During Joint Murder Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether accused Errington should be tried separately due to prejudicial evidence admissible only against co-accused Bloodsworth' 'Whether prejudice to Errington can be cured by jury direction' 'Responsibility of counsel to object to evidence when Crown omits portions of witness statements']
Ratio Decidendi
The potential prejudice to accused Errington arising from evidence admissible only against the co-accused Bloodsworth can be adequately addressed by careful jury directions; there was no basis to conclude Errington could not receive a fair trial jointly, and the conduct of counsel binds the accused concerning evidentiary decisions.
Court Disposition
Application for separate trial refused
Orders
- ['Application for separate trial of accused Errington is refused']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment