DR v R [2019] NSWCCA 320
No real injustice nor unacceptable risk of prejudice to the appellant occurred as a result of his being tried jointly with PV, because the evidence admissible solely against PV played a very small part, did not refer to or inculpate the appellant, any potential prejudice was mitigated by clear judicial directions, and the case against the appellant was not significantly weaker nor overwhelmed by the evidence against PV.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 23 December 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['appeals Against Conviction' 'joint Trials' 'tendency Evidence' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'severance of Indictment' 'jury Directions']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred due to the appellant being tried jointly with a co-accused (PV) when highly prejudicial evidence was admitted against PV but inadmissible against the appellant' "Whether the prejudice from the co-accused's tendency evidence could not be cured even by judicial direction"]
Ratio Decidendi
No real injustice nor unacceptable risk of prejudice to the appellant occurred as a result of his being tried jointly with PV, because the evidence admissible solely against PV played a very small part, did not refer to or inculpate the appellant, any potential prejudice was mitigated by clear judicial directions, and the case against the appellant was not significantly weaker nor overwhelmed by the evidence against PV.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed']
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