Separate trial should have been ordered where accomplice’s evidence gave rise to irremediable prejudice

Appeal against conviction - appellants convicted of aggravated burglary and false imprisonment - first two appellants also convicted of further dishonesty offences - two aggravated burglary incidents but third appellant only took part in one - charges relating to a third aggravated burglary severed from the indictment - car stolen during that burglary allegedly used in the incident of aggravated burglary for which all three appellants were on trial - two accomplices had pleaded guilty - whether admitted section of interview memorandum with third appellant was prejudicial such that there should have been separate trials - whether DNA samples legally taken but illegally retained beyond 12 months should have been admitted into evidence - whether search warrant was valid - whether trial judge breached fair procedures by reversing ruling that arrests were unlawful - whether arrests were unlawful - whether trial judge erred in his charge in respect of corroboration evidence and accomplices - whether trial judge re-charged jury correctly - whether trial judge should have acceded to applications for separate trials following prejudicial evidence elicited by way of cross-examination of accomplices linking third appellant to offences with which he had not been charged - miscellaneous other grounds of appeal.