Regina v Nedjelko BIKIC [2000] NSWCCA 106

Regina v Nedjelko BIKIC [2000] NSWCCA 106

The respondent bore an onus to show proper cause for a separate trial. In the circumstances, that onus could not be discharged without credible admissible evidence. Hidden J made the order without evidence properly admitted and accepted that was capable of justifying departure from the normal practice of a joint trial of alleged joint offenders; an assurance from the Bar table and sealed statements not properly tendered were insufficient. The appeal was therefore allowed and the separate trial order vacated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under Section 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order for Separate Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Hidden J for a separate trial vacated.
Legal Topics
['separate Trials' 'joint Trial of Alleged Joint Offenders' 'alibi Evidence' 'co Accused Witnesses' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Decisions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['separate Trials' 'joint Trial of Alleged Joint Offenders' 'alibi Evidence' 'co Accused Witnesses' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Decisions']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Under Section 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order for Separate Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Hidden J erred in ordering a separate trial of the respondent.' 'Whether the respondent discharged the onus of showing proper cause for a separate trial by adducing admissible and credible evidence supporting the application.' 'Whether an assurance from the Bar table and sealed statements not tendered to the Crown could justify departure from the normal practice of a joint trial for alleged joint offenders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent bore an onus to show proper cause for a separate trial. In the circumstances, that onus could not be discharged without credible admissible evidence. Hidden J made the order without evidence properly admitted and accepted that was capable of justifying departure from the normal practice of a joint trial of alleged joint offenders; an assurance from the Bar table and sealed statements not properly tendered were insufficient. The appeal was therefore allowed and the separate trial order vacated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Hidden J for a separate trial vacated.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The order of Hidden J for a separate trial is vacated.']