R v Bloodsworth; R v Errington (No 1)

In the case of R v Bloodsworth; R v Errington, the appellants were convicted of drug trafficking offences. The appeal concerns the trial process and the handling of evidence against the appellants. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge erred in not ordering separate trials for the co-accused and whether the appellants' counsel was deficient in not objecting to evidence that was prejudicial.

The primary issue before the Court was whether the trial judge should have ordered separate trials for the co-accused to prevent prejudice from evidence against one being transferred to the other. The Court found that while evidence against one co-accused can be prejudicial, it can be mitigated by proper directions to the jury. The Court also considered the responsibility of defence counsel to object to inadmissible evidence promptly. In this case, the counsel did not object to evidence that was plainly not going to be led by the Crown, which bound the appellants to the conduct of their counsel.

The Court held that there was no error in the trial judge's decision to not order separate trials, as the potential prejudice could be mitigated by appropriate jury directions. Additionally, the Court found that the appellants were bound by their counsel's failure to object to inadmissible evidence, as it was apparent that the evidence would not be led by the Crown. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

No further orders were made by the Court beyond the dismissal of the appeals. The Court's decision reinforces the importance of timely objections by defence counsel and the ability to mitigate prejudicial evidence through proper judicial direction.