R v Lam (No 3)

The case of R v Lam (No 3) involved two defendants who were being jointly tried. One of the accused sought the exclusion of certain evidence, which was admissible only against the co-accused. The court was required to decide whether it had the power to exclude such evidence under the grounds that it was unduly prejudicial to the accused, and whether it had a duty to ensure a fair trial for both defendants. The co-accused did not object to the exclusion of the evidence, which led to the court considering the discretionary power to exclude evidence sought to be led by any party in a joint trial.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether it had the authority to exclude evidence that was only admissible against one of the co-accused, and whether there was a duty to ensure a fair trial for both defendants. The court also needed to consider the principles relevant to a separate trial application, and whether inadmissible material in the co-accused’s out-of-court statements was a sufficient basis for a separate trial.

The court held that it had the power to exclude evidence that was sought to be led by any party in a joint trial, on the grounds that it was unduly prejudicial to the accused. The court also found that it had a duty to ensure a fair trial for both defendants. In this case, the co-accused did not object to the exclusion of the evidence, and the court considered that the inadmissible material in the co-accused’s out-of-court statements was not a sufficient basis for a separate trial. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to exclude the evidence sought to be led by one party.

The final orders of the court were not explicitly stated in the text, but it can be inferred that the court granted the application to exclude the evidence and proceeded with the joint trial. The court’s decision was based on the principle that it had the power to exclude evidence that was unduly prejudicial to the accused, and a duty to ensure a fair trial for both defendants. The court also considered the principles relevant to a separate trial application and found that the inadmissible material in the co-accused’s out-of-court statements was not a sufficient basis for a separate trial.