A separate trial may be required where the Crown case against one co-accused is weak and depends on the credibility of a witness whose credit is bolstered by evidence admissible only against the other co-accused, because no direction can adequately instruct a jury to assess the witness's credibility separately on different sets of evidence. R v Belford & Bound is distinguishable where the inadmissible evidence is of real significance to the credibility assessment, not merely cumulative of admissible evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.