AJ v The State of Western Australia

The case of AJ v The State of Western Australia involved an accused who was charged with multiple sexual offences against two complainants. The accused sought an order to sever the counts on the indictment, arguing that the joinder of the offences would result in an unfair trial due to the prejudicial effect of evidence from each complainant on the other. The court was required to determine whether the joinder of the offences would result in a likelihood of prejudice to the accused and, if so, whether such prejudice could be guarded against by a direction to the jury.

The court considered the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s*133 and the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s*31A, which provide for the admissibility of propensity and relationship evidence. The court found that the evidence of each complainant had significant probative value in relation to the other, and that the probative value of the evidence compared to the degree of risk of an unfair trial was such that fair-minded people would think that the public interest in adducing all relevant evidence of guilt must have priority over the risk of an unfair trial. The court also found that the likelihood of prejudice could be guarded against by a direction to the jury.

The court concluded that the accused was likely to be prejudiced by the joinder of the offences on the indictment, but that such prejudice could be guarded against by a direction to the jury. The court therefore refused to order separate trials. The accused appealed the decision, but the appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the court held that the joinder of multiple sexual offences against two complainants in one indictment did not necessarily result in a likelihood of prejudice to the accused, and that such prejudice could be guarded against by a direction to the jury. The court refused to order separate trials. The accused's appeal was dismissed.