R v Bloodsworth; R v Errington (No 3)

The accused, Bloodsworth and Errington, were charged with multiple offences including murder and armed robbery. The Crown sought to discharge one of the accused from the trial on the basis that the Crown's address to the jury was prejudicial and misleading. The address highlighted certain matters from an inadmissible recorded interview of one accused, which were not admissible in the trial of the co-accused. The court had to decide whether the Crown's address was so prejudicial and misleading that it rendered the trial unfair and whether it could be remedied by the Crown withdrawing the suggestion and the trial judge providing an explicit direction to the jury.

The court considered the content of the Crown's address and whether it was prejudicial and misleading in a way that rendered the trial unfair. The court acknowledged that the address highlighted matters that were inadmissible in the trial of the co-accused, but held that the application for discharge was premature. The court found that the impression created by the Crown's address could be remedied by the Crown withdrawing the suggestion and the trial judge providing an explicit direction to the jury. The court held that the application for discharge was refused.

The court held that the Crown's address was not so prejudicial and misleading that it rendered the trial unfair, and that the application for discharge was premature. The court held that the impression created by the Crown's address could be remedied by the Crown withdrawing the suggestion and the trial judge providing an explicit direction to the jury. The court held that the application for discharge was refused.

The court did not make any orders in relation to the application for discharge.