The defendant appealed complaining of the judge’s interference in his cross-examination.
Held: ‘In general, when a cross-examination is being conducted by competent counsel a judge should not intervene, save to clarify matters he does not understand or thinks the jury may not understand. If he wishes to ask questions about matters that have not been touched upon it is generally better to wait until the end of the examination or cross-examination. This is no doubt a counsel of perfection and a judge should not be criticised for occasional transgressions, still less can it be said in such cases that there is any irregularity in the conduct of the trial or that the verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory. But there may come a time, depending on the nature and frequency of the interruptions, that a reviewing court is of the opinion that defence counsel was so hampered in the way he properly wished to conduct the cross-examination that the judge’s conduct amounts to a material irregularity.’
Citations:
[1994] QB 261
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lunkulu and Others v Regina CACD 7-Aug-2015
Request for leave to appeal out of time against convictions for murder and against sentence. Much evidence had been circumstantial, and the defendants alleged bias in the summing up, and complained of the admission of bad character evidence.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.581643