R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 8) [2018] NSWSC 187

R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 8) [2018] NSWSC 187

The application was refused because the Court was not persuaded that a joint trial would cause positive injustice to Mr Caleo. Although some evidence admissible against Mr Afu could potentially prejudice Mr Caleo, the Crown case against Mr Caleo was not without strength and was not shown to be so significantly weaker as to require severance. The evidence identifying 'the husband' could be isolated and made the subject of clear directions that it could not be used against Mr Caleo, and the jury could be directed about evidence admissible against one accused but not the other.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Pre Trial Application for Separate Trial
Outcome
Application for separate trial refused.
Legal Topics
['separate Trials' 'joint Trials of Co Accused' 'interests of Justice' 'prejudice to Accused' 'jury Directions' 'murder' 'soliciting to Murder']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['separate Trials' 'joint Trials of Co Accused' 'interests of Justice' 'prejudice to Accused' 'jury Directions' 'murder' 'soliciting to Murder']

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 Proceedings / Pre Trial Application for Separate Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trials of Mark Richard Caleo and Alani Afu should be separated in the interests of justice under s 29(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).' 'Whether the evidence against Mr Caleo was significantly weaker than the evidence against Mr Afu.' 'Whether evidence admissible against Mr Afu but not against Mr Caleo created a real risk of positive injustice to Mr Caleo.' 'Whether any prejudice to Mr Caleo could be ameliorated by clear jury directions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the Court was not persuaded that a joint trial would cause positive injustice to Mr Caleo. Although some evidence admissible against Mr Afu could potentially prejudice Mr Caleo, the Crown case against Mr Caleo was not without strength and was not shown to be so significantly weaker as to require severance. The evidence identifying 'the husband' could be isolated and made the subject of clear directions that it could not be used against Mr Caleo, and the jury could be directed about evidence admissible against one accused but not the other.

Court Disposition

Application for separate trial refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for separate trial refused.']