Where evidence of a co-accused's prior charge for a similar offence is admitted in a joint trial with cut-throat defences, a direction that the jury may use the evidence to conclude the other accused is of 'a less violent disposition' but not to infer the charged accused is 'the sort of person likely to have committed the offence' draws an illusory distinction that cannot cure the prejudice; separate trials should be ordered. The question whether co-accused propensity evidence must show 'striking similarity' was left unresolved, with two of three judges declining to endorse that requirement.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 22 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 22 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.