The defendant appealed against his conviction for offences of for dishonesty. He was said ti have grossly overcharged two spinster sisters for work on their home. He said that the judge had failed properly to put his defence before the jury.
Held: There is an obligation on a judge to identify for the jury what the nature of the defence is, and to provide such assistance as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The judge had failed o do so in this case, and the court could not be sure that the conviction was safe. The conviction was quashed.
Watkins LJ, Bush, Kennedy JJ
[1987] EWCA Crim 3, (1988) 86 Cr App R 213
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Ray HL 25-Jul-1973
The defendant ordered a meal at a restaurant believing his companion would lend him the money to pay. He later decided to seek to avoid payment and took a opportunity to escape.
Held: The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored. The . .
Cited – Regina v Hammond 1986
Boreham J said: ‘There is clear authority for a proposition, which is contrary to the decision of the learned judge in this case, that where a defendant in the course of interview, whether by oral reply or by statement in writing, makes excuses for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.247959