Lord Hanworth MR discussed the general nature of cross-examination, saying: ‘Cross-examination is a powerful and valuable weapon for the purpose of testing the veracity of a witness and the accuracy and completeness of his story. It is entrusted to the hands of counsel in the confidence that it will be used with discretion; and with due regard to the assistance to be rendered by it to the Court, not forgetting at the same time the burden that is imposed upon the witness. We desire to say that in our opinion the cross-examination in the present case did not conform to the above conditions and at times it failed to display that measure of courtesy to the witness which is by no means inconsistent with a skilful, yet powerful, cross-examination.’
Determining whether the jury verdict was reasonable, does not mean, Lord Wright said: ‘whether the verdict appears to the appellate court to be right, but whether it is such as to show that the jury have failed to perform their duty’ and ‘For the appellate court to set aside the verdict of a jury as being against the weight of evidence, merely because the court does not agree with it, would, in my judgment, be to usurp the functions of the jury and to substitute their own opinion for that of the jury; that would be quite wrong.’
Lord Hanworth MR, Lord Wright
[1935] AC 346
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Wakely 7-Jun-1990
(High Court of Australia) The defendants appealed against their convictions, saying that their cross examinations had been improperly restricted by the judge at trial.
Held: The court considered the limit of permissible cross-examination. . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.470724