The mere fact that a co-accused's police interview containing statements prejudicial to the appellant is before the jury in a joint trial does not require separate trials, provided the summing-up clearly separates the evidence admissible against each accused. An appellate court should not lightly conclude that a jury was likely to have impermissibly used evidence against a co-accused.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.