REGINA v GEORGIOU [1999] NSWCCA 125

REGINA v GEORGIOU [1999] NSWCCA 125

Leave was refused because it was open to Sperling J to find that the evidence against the applicant was not significantly weaker than that against the co-accused, and that the prejudice arising from the co-accused's police interview was readily identifiable and capable of being addressed by an appropriate jury direction. No error of law was shown in the refusal to order a separate trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 From an Interlocutory Decision Refusing a Separate Trial / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
['separate Trial From Co Accused' 'joint Indictment' 'interlocutory Appeal' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['separate Trial From Co Accused' 'joint Indictment' 'interlocutory Appeal' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 From an Interlocutory Decision Refusing a Separate Trial / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to order that the applicant be tried separately from his co-accused.' 'Whether the evidence against the applicant was significantly weaker than and different to the evidence against the co-accused.' "Whether the co-accused's police interview created a real risk of prejudice that could not be addressed by jury directions."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because it was open to Sperling J to find that the evidence against the applicant was not significantly weaker than that against the co-accused, and that the prejudice arising from the co-accused's police interview was readily identifiable and capable of being addressed by an appropriate jury direction. No error of law was shown in the refusal to order a separate trial.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.']