Severance of Charges
Where more than one charge has been joined in an indictment the Court may order that the charges be severed if the joinder may cause prejudice to the accused or if it is desirable for the court to order seperate trials on counts (s 597A(1) Criminal Code).
Separate Trials
Where an indictment contains charges against more than one accused - an accused may apply to have a separate trials, and the court may order this at any time during the trial (s 597B Criminal Code).
See, R v Deemal-Hall, Darkan and McIvor [2005] QCA 206 in which the Court quoted Callinan and Heydon JJ at [58] of Ali v The Queen [2005] HCA 8 as reason for the refusal of separate trials:
'The events leading up to the [offence], and the guilt or innocence of the appellant and the co-accused, were closely interconnected. Their relationship, their similar motives, their almost equal opportunity to commit the crimes, and their capacity, either separately or jointly to commit them, all argued very strongly in favour of a joint trial. There were no special or other features of the case requiring that they be tried separately. That one might seek to incriminate the other, as each accused here did, could provide no justification for a direction that the appellant and his co-accused be tried separately. A joint trial of the appellant and the co-accused served to give the jury the means of obtaining a conspectus of the respective roles of each of them in the crimes with which they were charged.”
See, R v Deemal-Hall, Darkan and McIvor [2005] QCA 206 in which the Court quoted Callinan and Heydon JJ at [58] of Ali v The Queen [2005] HCA 8 as reason for the refusal of separate trials:
'The events leading up to the [offence], and the guilt or innocence of the appellant and the co-accused, were closely interconnected. Their relationship, their similar motives, their almost equal opportunity to commit the crimes, and their capacity, either separately or jointly to commit them, all argued very strongly in favour of a joint trial. There were no special or other features of the case requiring that they be tried separately. That one might seek to incriminate the other, as each accused here did, could provide no justification for a direction that the appellant and his co-accused be tried separately. A joint trial of the appellant and the co-accused served to give the jury the means of obtaining a conspectus of the respective roles of each of them in the crimes with which they were charged.”