R v Mitchell (No 2)

Alfred Rigney and four co-accused face charges related to two murders in South Australia. Rigney applied for a separate trial, arguing that the prejudicial effect of inadmissible evidence implicating him in the murders could not be mitigated by directions to the jury. The court was required to determine whether the prejudicial effect of the inadmissible evidence could be adequately addressed through directions to the jury.

The court held that the prejudicial effect of the inadmissible evidence could be met by an appropriate direction to the jury. The judge found that while the evidence was prejudicial, it could be managed through effective jury directions. The court dismissed Rigney's application for a separate trial, concluding that the prejudicial effect of the evidence could be sufficiently addressed through the jury being directed on the proper use of such evidence.