Bannah v The King; Zahinda v The King

This matter concerned appeals by Bannah and Zahinda against their convictions. The central dispute revolved around the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the credibility and reliability of key prosecution witnesses, AK and Ms Jomah, in a joint trial. The Court of Appeal considered whether these directions, and the conduct of the joint trial itself, had led to a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury to consider the credibility and reliability of AK and Ms Jomah on a global basis, thereby potentially admitting inadmissible material against one or both accused. The court also had to determine if the joint trial was appropriate in the circumstances, given the potential for prejudice and the nature of the evidence led against each accused.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the trial judge's direction to consider the witnesses' credibility and reliability on a global basis, even without objection from counsel, effectively permitted inadmissible material to be considered by the jury in relation to both accused. The court found that while joint trials can be appropriate, in this instance, there was no compelling basis for such a trial, as there was no possibility of a cut-throat defence or inconsistent verdicts. The court highlighted that the direction, by allowing the jury to assess the witnesses' credibility globally, failed to adequately separate the evidence relevant to each accused, leading to a potential miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions, and ordered new trials for both Bannah and Zahinda.