R v Featherstone; R v Bloxsome (No 2)

In the case of R v Featherstone; R v Bloxsome (No 2), the accused, Featherstone and Bloxsome, faced allegations of sexual assault. The dispute centred on whether the court should grant an application for a separate trial for Featherstone, which had previously been dismissed. Featherstone argued that the refusal to sever the trials led to him being unable to elect for a trial by judge alone, while Bloxsome preferred a jury trial. The court had to determine if the joint trial would prejudice Featherstone to the extent that a separate trial was warranted.

The primary legal issue was whether the joint trial would cause such prejudice to Featherstone that it would be unjust to proceed without a severance. The court examined the nature of the allegations against Featherstone and Bloxsome, the evidence available, and the potential prejudice to Featherstone if a joint trial proceeded. The court considered the fact that Featherstone had not demonstrated how the joint trial would result in prejudice, particularly given that Bloxsome had a right to a jury trial. The court also noted that Featherstone had not provided any evidence of how the joint trial would be detrimental to his defence.

The court held that there was no sufficient evidence of prejudice that would warrant a separate trial for Featherstone. It was found that the joint trial would not cause unfair prejudice, and the application for severance was dismissed. The court emphasised that Featherstone had not shown how the joint trial would lead to an unfair outcome or prejudice his right to a fair trial. The court concluded that a joint trial would not substantially prejudice Featherstone, and therefore, the application for a separate trial was denied.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss Featherstone's application for a separate trial. Featherstone and Bloxsome would proceed with a joint trial, with Bloxsome electing for a jury trial. Featherstone was not entitled to a separate trial by judge alone, and the court found no grounds for severance.