R v Hazairin Iskandar; R v Andrew Iskandar & R v Nita Iskandar [2011] NSWSC 1192
A separate trial is warranted for Hazairin Iskandar as the evidence against him is significantly weaker and fundamentally different from that against Andrew Iskandar, containing admissions by Andrew highly prejudicial to the Applicant. Attempting to mitigate such prejudice by jury direction is unlikely to suffice, risking positive injustice.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 October 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Criminal Application / Pre Trial Ruling on Separate Trial Application
- Outcome
- Separate trial granted for Hazairin Iskandar
- Legal Topics
- ['separate Trial of Co Accused' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'admissions by Co Accused' 'procedural Fairness']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Criminal Application / Pre Trial Ruling on Separate Trial Application
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Hazairin Iskandar should be tried separately from Andrew Iskandar due to prejudicial admissions made by co-accused' 'Whether prejudicial evidence would cause positive injustice to the Applicant in a joint trial']
Ratio Decidendi
A separate trial is warranted for Hazairin Iskandar as the evidence against him is significantly weaker and fundamentally different from that against Andrew Iskandar, containing admissions by Andrew highly prejudicial to the Applicant. Attempting to mitigate such prejudice by jury direction is unlikely to suffice, risking positive injustice.
Court Disposition
Separate trial granted for Hazairin Iskandar
Orders
- ['Hazairin Iskandar to be tried separately from Andrew Iskandar.' 'The trial of Hazairin Iskandar stood over to the Arraignments List on 11 November 2011.']
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