R v Lockett [2013] NSWSC 859

R v Lockett [2013] NSWSC 859

Brown's and Barnes' admissions would significantly strengthen the Crown case against Lockett by providing inadmissible, highly prejudicial evidence that he knew before going to 42 Russell Street that there was a gun and knew, when striking the deceased, that he was striking him with a gun. Brown's account also supported evidence that Lockett struck the deceased more than once, and the risk of prejudice was enhanced by Senior Constable Mannah's evidence of Brown's conversation. Clear and emphatic directions limiting use of the ERISPs would not be sufficient to avoid a miscarriage, so there was a real risk of positive injustice in a joint trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Murder Prosecution; Application for Separate Trials / Procedural Ruling on Samuel Lockett's Application to Be Tried Separately
Outcome
Application granted; Lockett to be tried separately.
Legal Topics
['separate Trials' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'murder' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'admissions in Erisp' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['separate Trials' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'murder' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'admissions in Erisp' 'miscarriage of Justice']

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 Law Murder Prosecution; Application for Separate Trials / Procedural Ruling on Samuel Lockett's Application to Be Tried Separately

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Samuel Lockett should be tried separately from Richard Barnes and Carl Brown.' 'Whether admissions by Barnes and Brown, inadmissible against Lockett, created a real risk of positive injustice in a joint trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Brown's and Barnes' admissions would significantly strengthen the Crown case against Lockett by providing inadmissible, highly prejudicial evidence that he knew before going to 42 Russell Street that there was a gun and knew, when striking the deceased, that he was striking him with a gun. Brown's account also supported evidence that Lockett struck the deceased more than once, and the risk of prejudice was enhanced by Senior Constable Mannah's evidence of Brown's conversation. Clear and emphatic directions limiting use of the ERISPs would not be sufficient to avoid a miscarriage, so there was a real risk of positive injustice in a joint trial.

Court Disposition

Application granted; Lockett to be tried separately.

Orders

  • ['Order that Lockett be tried separately.']