Pretrial — application for severance — co-defendant — interests of justice — ill-treatment of a vulnerable adult — failure to protect a vulnerable adult — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 138 — Crimes Act 1961, s 340 — Evidence Act 2006, s 27(1)— Churchis v R [2014] NZCA 281 — R v Fenton CA223/00, 14 September 2000 — R v Smith CA522/07, 1 August 2008 — R v Peters CA430/05, 22 March 2006. The two defendants faced charges of ill-treatment of a vulnerable adult and failure to protect a vulnerable adult. The charges related to the treatment of the first defendant's brother who died while in the first defendant's primary care. The autopsy revealed injuries such as bed sores, blunt force trauma, broken ribs and wasting from malnutrition. The second defendant had lived with the defendant, was his partner and assisted with the deceased's care. Each defendant made an application to sever the charges from the other. The first defendant's application was based on the grounds that a jury would not be able to put aside the second defendant's graphic and damning out-of-Court statement. Further, in order to attack this out-of-Court statement, the first defendant would likely to have to give evidence which would be at odds with his right to silence. The second defendant sought severance on the basis that the open hostility between the defendants would prevent the jury from assessing the case in a dispassionate fashion. The Crown opposed both applications on the basis that it was in the interests of justice for all charges to be heard together and any prejudice could be managed by way of jury directions. Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Act allows the Court to sever charges if it is in the interests of justice to do so. The first defendant's application was dismissed. The second defendant's out-of-Court statement was inadmissible and could be properly dealt with by judicial directions. However, one charge relied upon the statement and so the Judge ordered it be withdrawn. The second defendant's application was also easily dismissed. Animosity between defendants is not unusual and can easily be managed by judicial directions. There was no real prejudice to the the defendant under this ground. Overall, it was in the public interest for the defendants to have a joint trial. They allegedly jointly committed the crimes, the witness were all the same, it would prevent cost and effort of conducting two lengthy trials and there could be a risk of inconsistent verdicts if they were not tried together. Judgment Date: 18 March 2019.