The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that the judge had prejudiced his trial.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Toulson LJ emphasised ‘that it is for the prosecution to cross-examine, not for the judge’, and that ‘the right time for the prosecution to cross-examine is after a witness has given his evidence-in-chief. It would be unthinkable for prosecuting counsel to jump up in the middle of a witness’ evidence-in-chief and seek to conduct some hostile cross-examination.’
He continued: ‘The appellant’s story may have been highly improbable, but he was entitled to explain it to the jury without being subjected to sniper fire in the course of doing so. The potential for injustice is that if the jury, at the very time when they are listening to the witness giving his narrative account of events, do so to the accompaniment of questions from the Bench indicating to anybody with common sense that the judge does not believe a word of it, this may affect the mind of the jury as they listen to the account.
We have been driven in this case to the regretful conclusion that the nature and extent of interventions over the three days in which the appellant gave his evidence deprived him of the opportunity of having his evidence considered by the jury in the way that he was entitled. The conclusion from that is that we do not consider that he received the quality of fair trial to which he was entitled.’
Judges:
Toulson LJ
Citations:
(2009) EWCA Cr App 348
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.377806
