The defendant appealed convictions for possession of cannabis with intent to supply. He had been seen apparently passing packages to individuals outside a pub, and cannabis wraps were found on him, but no money. The judge directed the jury, referring to a possible runner who might have the money, but no such suggestion had been made by the prosecution or defence. Also the officer on first approaching the defendant said he was looking for offensive weapons, but his evidence was that he had seen drugs transactions. The judge had failed to see that this might affect the credibility of the police statements, and had not allowed for this in his summing up. The judge in summing up had presented the prosecution case in a way different from that actually put. The appeal was allowed.
Citations:
[1996] EWCA Crim 1256
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Cristini CACD 1987
In considering whether a matter should have been addressed by the judge in summing up the court should consider whether it was an issue which was ‘actively canvassed in the course of the hearing’. For the judge to raise it for the first time after a . .
Cited – Regina v White 1987
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.148920
