De Jesus v The Queen [1986] HCA 65
The convictions cannot stand because the trial judge erred in not severing the indictment when evidence for one sexual offence was not admissible in the trial of the other, resulting in significant prejudice to the accused, contrary to the principles articulated in Sutton and Boardman.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Application for special leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; new trials ordered.
- Legal Topics
- ['joinder of Charges' 'severance of Indictments' 'sexual Offences' 'prejudice and Jury Directions' 'discretion to Order Separate Trials']
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 Special Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in refusing separate trials for charges of sexual offences arising from separate incidents.' 'Whether failure to sever the indictment led to a miscarriage of justice due to prejudicial joinder.']
Ratio Decidendi
The convictions cannot stand because the trial judge erred in not severing the indictment when evidence for one sexual offence was not admissible in the trial of the other, resulting in significant prejudice to the accused, contrary to the principles articulated in Sutton and Boardman.
Court Disposition
Application for special leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; new trials ordered.
Orders
- ['Special leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Convictions set aside.' 'New trials ordered for each set of offences.']
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