The prosecution case relied upon the evidence of a woman with whom the accused cohabited. The prosecution case was that the accused had told the woman that he had killed the victim in a particular way. The defendant denied killing the victim and pathological evidence was called that suggested that the victim died in circumstances different from that described by the woman in whom the defendant confided in. After retiring, the jury returned to court and informed the judge that they had a problem relating to the evidence. The trial judge did not ascertain the problem the jury were experiencing but rather restated the evidence. The defendant was convicted. The conviction was appealed. The Board considered whether the summing up was fair to the defendant.
Held: The summing up must be looked at as a whole.
Lord Lane said: ‘In rejecting the defendants submission that the comments of the judge were unfairly weighted against him, the court asked themselves whether the comments amounted to a usurpation of the jury’s function. In the view of their Lordships it is difficult to see how a judge can usurp the jury’s function short of withdrawing in terms an issue from the jury’s consideration. In other words this was to use a test which by present day standards is too favourable to the prosecution. Comments which fall short of such a usurpation may nevertheless be so weighted against the defendant at trial as to leave the jury little real choice other than to comply with what are obviously the judge’s views or wishes.’
and ‘The Court of Appeal took the view that the trial judge was not putting forward an unfair or unbalanced picture of the facts as he saw them. In rejecting the defendant’s submission that the comments of the judge were unfairly weighted against him, the court asked themselves whether the comments amounted to a usurpation of the jury’s function. In the view of their Lordships it is difficult to see how a judge can usurp the jury’s function short of withdrawing in terms an issue from the jury’s consideration. In other words this was to use a test which by present day standards is too favourable to the prosecution. Comments which fall short of usurpation may nonetheless be so weighted against the defendant at trial as to leave the jury little real choice other than to comply with what are obviously the judge’s views or wishes. ‘
and ‘Their Lordships realise that the judge’s task in this type of trial is never an easy one. He must of course remain impartial, but at the same time the evidence may point strongly to the guilt of the defendant; the judge may often feel that he has to supplement deficiencies in the performance of the prosecution or the defence, in order to maintain a proper balance between the two sides in the adversarial proceedings. It is all too easy for a court thereafter to criticise a judge who may have fallen into error for this reason. However, if the system is trial by jury then the decision must be that of the jury and not of the judge using the jury as something akin to a vehicle for his own views. Whether that is what has happened in any particular case is not likely to be an easy decision.’
Judges:
Lords Lane, Templeman, Oliver, Goff and Woolf
Citations:
[1993] 1 WLR 818
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Gilbey CACD 26-Jan-1990
The court warned judges about the need for a balanced summing up to the jury: ‘A judge . . is not entitled to comment in such a way as to make the summing up as a whole unbalanced . . It cannot be said too often or too strongly that a summing up . .
Cited – Berry v The Queen PC 15-Jun-1992
(Jamaica) Appeal from conviction for murder. Accidental discharge of gun in struggle. . .
Cited by:
Approved – Regina v Wood CACD 11-Jul-1995
A newspaper’s pressure on jury to convict by suggesting other evidence, made the trial unfair. Suggestions of unfairness by judge in his summing up should only be made if supported by counsel at the trial. The degree of adverse comment allowed today . .
Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.192080