The Queensland Court of Appeal held that a joint trial was not unfairly prejudicial where co-accused statements were discrete and an appropriate direction was given, applying the presumption that juries follow judicial directions. The Court held that a direction on intoxication phrased in terms of 'capacity to form intent' rather than 'whether intent was formed' did not constitute a misdirection when read in the context of the summing up as a whole, and that no specific direction was required on the effect of intoxication on an aider's awareness under s 7 of the Criminal Code, as this was within the jury's ordinary knowledge. A misdirection suggesting the accused bore the onus of establishing an innocent explanation for prior lies was held not to occasion a miscarriage of justice given the otherwise overwhelming case, applying the proviso.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.