R v Thomson; R v Dann [2002] NSWCCA 400

R v Thomson; R v Dann [2002] NSWCCA 400

The order for severance was set aside because there is no legal rule forbidding mutually exclusive counts in one indictment if there is a prima facie case on both, and proper jury directions can avert any risk of confusion or prejudice; the trial judge failed to consider relevant authority and whether such directions would suffice, constituting appealable error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (district Court Severance of Indictment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['mutually Exclusive Counts' 'severance of Indictment' 'indictment Practice and Procedure']
['criminal Law'] ['mutually Exclusive Counts' 'severance of Indictment' 'indictment Practice and Procedure']

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 / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (district Court Severance of Indictment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the inclusion of mutually exclusive counts in one indictment is permitted under law' 'Whether the trial court erred in ordering the severance of counts in the indictment']

Ratio Decidendi

The order for severance was set aside because there is no legal rule forbidding mutually exclusive counts in one indictment if there is a prima facie case on both, and proper jury directions can avert any risk of confusion or prejudice; the trial judge failed to consider relevant authority and whether such directions would suffice, constituting appealable error.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['The order made by His Honour Judge Shadbolt on 22 May 2002, that the counts in the indictment be severed, be set aside.' 'No order as to costs.']