The defendant appealed his conviction for rape saying that the judge had improperly intervened to prevent him presenting his case properly.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Although the judge had overstepped the proper boundaries in his examination of the defendant. Nevertheless the conviction was safe.
Citations:
[2018] WLR(D) 724, [2018] EWCA Crim 2606
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Inns, Regina v CACD 4-May-2018
Singh LJ gave the following helpful summary of fundamental principles as to the extent to which the judge may properly intervene during the examination and cross-examination of witnesses:
‘First, the tribunal of fact in a criminal trial in . .
Cited – Regina v Hulusi and Purvis CACD 1973
The defendant appealed against his conviction, complaining of the judge’s repeated hostile interventions. Lawton LJ said: ‘Time and time again the judge intervened, got an answer and then asked questions on that answer. The impression he must have . .
Cited – Copsey and Another, Regina v CACD 16-Jul-2008
The defendants appealed against conviction saying that the judge had improperly intervened to allow the impression that he did not believe them.
Held: The appeals succeeded. . .
Cited – Zarezadeh, Regina v CACD 1-Mar-2011
The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that the judge’s interventions had rendered his trial unfair. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.630982
