R v Newson; R v Cunneen (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 462

There is a real danger that inadmissible but highly prejudicial evidence against Mr Newson would sub-consciously affect the jury’s deliberations concerning Cunneen, creating positive injustice. A separate trial is necessary to avoid this risk.

Parties: Plaintiff: Regina; Accused: Sayle Kenneth Newson; Accused/applicant: James Anthony Cunneen
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 30 April 2020
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Separate Trial Application – Procedural Ruling
Outcome: Application for separate trial granted.
Legal Topics: Trial Procedure, Separate Trials, Prejudicial Evidence

Criminal Law Trial Procedure Separate Trials Prejudicial Evidence

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 5 Party arguments 2

Parties

Regina

Plaintiff

Sayle Kenneth Newson

Accused

James Anthony Cunneen

Accused/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Separate Trial Application – Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

1 Whether James Anthony Cunneen should be tried separately from Sayle Kenneth Newson due to prejudicial evidence and risk of positive injustice in a joint trial

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for separate trial granted.

Orders

James Anthony Cunneen is to be tried on the charge of accessory after the fact to murder, pursuant to s 349(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), separately from Sayle Kenneth Newson, who is to be tried on the charge of murder pursuant to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
The matter of R v Sayle Kenneth Newson is stood over to the Arraignments List on 1 May 2020, for the purpose of fixing a fresh trial date.