R v McParland; R v Wingate (No 2) [2011] NSWDC 265

R v McParland; R v Wingate (No 2) [2011] NSWDC 265

The potential prejudice from inconsistent accounts of the accused can be adequately addressed by clear directions to the jury; thus, a joint trial remains desirable and the application for separate trials is refused.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Troy McParland; Accused: Luke Wingate
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Separate Trials
Outcome
Application for separate trials rejected.
Legal Topics
Separate Trials, Inconsistent Accounts, Prejudice and Jury Directions
Criminal Law Separate Trials Inconsistent Accounts Prejudice and 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Troy McParland

Accused

Luke Wingate

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Separate Trials

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a separate trial should be ordered due to inconsistent accounts and potential prejudice to the accused

Ratio Decidendi

The potential prejudice from inconsistent accounts of the accused can be adequately addressed by clear directions to the jury; thus, a joint trial remains desirable and the application for separate trials is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for separate trials rejected.

Orders

  • Joint trial to proceed; application for separate trials is refused.