Mro v The Queen

Mro was convicted of multiple counts of sexual offences against three complainants and making child pornography, and pleaded guilty to a count of possessing child pornography. Mro appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in law by failing to sever the charges against him and order separate trials. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal.

The legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in law by not severing the charges and ordering separate trials. The court considered whether there was a lack of commonality or an insufficient pattern of conduct between the allegations of one complainant and those of the other complainants, which would warrant separate trials. The court also considered whether the directions given to the jury were sufficient and whether the evidence of uncharged acts was incorrectly characterised as evidence of grooming.

The court found that the trial judge erred in law by not severing the charges and ordering separate trials. The court found that there was a lack of commonality or an insufficient pattern of conduct between the allegations of one complainant and those of the other complainants, which warranted separate trials. The court found that the directions given to the jury were otherwise sufficient, and that the evidence of uncharged acts was not incorrectly characterised as evidence of grooming. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and ordered a retrial. Mro was re-sentenced on the remaining count of possessing child pornography.

No further orders were made by the court.