R v G CA12/04

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the applicant, [S E G], applied for leave to appeal against a pre-trial ruling by Judge Mackintosh in the District Court at Wellington, which refused an application for severance of trials. The applicant was charged with receiving stolen property on 4 September 2002, while his female partner, [A-L J], was charged with burglary on the same day. The Crown alleged that [A-L J] and two other young women carried out the burglary, stealing a television set, a video player, a PlayStation, and games, which were later sold to the applicant. The applicant challenged the decision of the District Court to not sever the trials, arguing that he would be unduly prejudiced by the evidence of [A-L J]'s admissions. The Crown supported the District Court's decision, stating that the counts were related in time and circumstance, and it would be artificial to have two separate trials.

The court found that the District Court Judge was correct in her assessment of the situation and in the exercise of her discretion in refusing severance. The court held that it would be artificial for separate trials to be ordered when the evidence relevant to one count was relevant to the other, notwithstanding the different crimes alleged. The court emphasised that the jury was entitled to see the matter in the round, and the offences alleged were different even though interrelated. The court concluded that there was little likelihood of the jury treating any admission of [A-L J] as in any way binding on the applicant, and there was no likelihood of other prejudice to the applicant in having both charges heard together in one trial.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The final orders were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.