R v Kearnes; R v Paton [2013] NSWSC 1139
A real risk of positive injustice to Mr Kearnes would arise if the trials remained joint, given the highly prejudicial nature of Ms Schwind’s evidence against Mr Paton which would be difficult for a jury to disregard in relation to Mr Kearnes, especially as the case against Mr Kearnes is weaker. Therefore, the tests for severance laid down in R v Middis and related authorities are met, justifying separate trials.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 09 August 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Separate Trials
- Outcome
- Separate trials ordered
- Legal Topics
- ['joint Trial' 'separate Trial' 'application for Separate Trial' 'admission by Co Accused' 'prejudice' 'compartmentalisation of Evidence' 'positive Injustice']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Separate Trials
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the joint trial of two co-accused should be severed and separate trials ordered due to prejudicial evidence admissible against only one accused' 'Whether a positive injustice would arise from a joint trial']
Ratio Decidendi
A real risk of positive injustice to Mr Kearnes would arise if the trials remained joint, given the highly prejudicial nature of Ms Schwind’s evidence against Mr Paton which would be difficult for a jury to disregard in relation to Mr Kearnes, especially as the case against Mr Kearnes is weaker. Therefore, the tests for severance laid down in R v Middis and related authorities are met, justifying separate trials.
Court Disposition
Separate trials ordered
Orders
- ['The trials of Peter John Kearnes and Christopher John Paton for the murder of the deceased are to proceed separately.']
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