(Cayman Islands) The defendant complained that the conduct of prosecuting counsel at his trial had been such as to undermine the fairness of his trial. Counsel had repeatedly and disparagingly interrupted cross-examinations, and the summing up.
Held: The right of a criminal defendant to a fair trial is absolute. Though minor departures from the rules would not invalidate a trial, in this case prosecuting counsel had indeed gone too far, ‘The duty of prosecuting counsel is not to obtain a conviction at all costs but to act as a minister of justice’ and the judge had failed to restrain him. The convictions were quashed. As to Boucher: ‘. . (iii) While the duty of counsel may require a strong and direct challenge to the evidence of a witness, and strong criticism may properly be made of a witness or a defendant so long as that criticism is based on evidence or the absence of evidence before the court, there can never be any justification for bullying, intimidation, personal vilification or insult or for the exchange of insults between counsel. Any disparaging comment on a witness or a defendant should be reserved for a closing speech. (iv) Reference should never be made to matters which may be prejudicial to a defendant but which are not before the jury.’
Lord Bingham said: ‘But the right of a criminal defendant to a fair trial is absolute. There will come a point when the departure from good practice is so gross, or so persistent, or so prejudicial, or so irremediable that an appellate court will have no choice but to condemn a trial as unfair and quash a conviction as unsafe, however strong the grounds for believing the defendant to be guilty. The right to a fair trial is one to be enjoyed by the guilty as well as the innocent, for a defendant is presumed to be innocent until proved to be otherwise in a fairly conducted trial.’
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Citations:
Times 24-Apr-2002, [2002] UKPC 19, (Appeal No 22 of 2001), [2002] 1 WLR 2237, [2002] 2 Crim App R 267
Links:
Citing:
Approved – Boucher v The Queen 1954
(Supreme Court of Canada) The prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to act impartially with no notion of winning or losing.
Randall J said: ‘It cannot be over-emphasised that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mantoor Ramdhanie and others v The State PC 15-Dec-2005
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction, saying he had not been properly able to pur forward his evidence of good character. The judge had prevented the defence putting questions to show a . .
Cited – Mantoor Ramdhanie and others v The State PC 15-Dec-2005
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction, saying he had not been properly able to pur forward his evidence of good character. The judge had prevented the defence putting questions to show a . .
Cited – Michel v The Queen (The Court of Appeal of Jersey) PC 4-Nov-2009
michel_rPC2009
(Jersey) The defendant appealed, complaining that the number and character of the judge’s interventions in his trial for money laundering had made it unfair.
Held: The conviction was quashed and the case remitted for a decision as to . .
Cited – Nunn v Suffolk Constabulary and Another Admn 4-May-2012
The claimant had been convicted of murder and his appeal had failed. He now sought disclosure of the forensic material held by the police to his own legal team.
Held: Permission to apply for review was granted, but the claim failed. ‘It is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170052