The decision confirms that leave to appeal interlocutory orders refusing separate trials will not readily be granted where the complaint is essentially directed at evidentiary rulings, and where the trial judge has considered the relevant factors including complexity, prejudice, and the capacity of jury directions. In insider trading prosecutions involving multiple counts, the admissibility of coincidence evidence under s 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 is a significant but not determinative factor in the separate trials question. A trial judge is not required to frame specific jury directions at the time of ruling on admissibility or separate trials.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.