The disparity in the volume of evidence between co-accused in a joint trial does not of itself establish prejudice warranting a separate trial. Where the Crown can demonstrate that evidence beyond the direct evidence against an applicant is necessary to prove the charge (including to prove a joint criminal enterprise), that evidence will not have a substantial prejudicial effect. The existence of a separate joint criminal enterprise on the same indictment in which the applicant is not involved does not of itself establish a miscarriage of justice, particularly where the trial judge can give clear directions distinguishing between the enterprises.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.