R v Dilosa; R v McHenry [2021] NSWSC 1470

R v Dilosa; R v McHenry [2021] NSWSC 1470

The balance of prejudice and fairness does not favour separate trials. Any potential prejudice to Dilosa from McHenry's statements or expert evidence can be effectively addressed by jury directions. The evidence against each accused is not significantly different or weaker as to warrant separate trials, and the interests of justice are best served by a joint trial.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina (Crown); Accused: Justin Dilosa; Accused: Carol McHenry
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Procedural Ruling
Outcome
application for separate trial refused
Legal Topics
Separate Trials, Murder, Pre Trial Procedure, Prejudice, Jury Directions, Cut Throat Defence
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Separate Trials Murder Pre Trial Procedure Prejudice Jury Directions Cut Throat Defence

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Crown)

Prosecution

Justin Dilosa

Accused

Carol McHenry

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused Dilosa's trial should be separated from that of the co-accused McHenry due to prejudicial evidence and fairness concerns

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of prejudice and fairness does not favour separate trials. Any potential prejudice to Dilosa from McHenry's statements or expert evidence can be effectively addressed by jury directions. The evidence against each accused is not significantly different or weaker as to warrant separate trials, and the interests of justice are best served by a joint trial.

Court Disposition

application for separate trial refused

Orders

  • The notice of motion filed by the accused Dilosa on 9 November 2021 is dismissed.