SUMMING-UP

[2020] EWCA Crim 1028
[2020] EWCA Crim 1028
CA (Crim Div) (Macur LJ, Jay J, Judge Marks QC)
4 August 2020

The convictions of two young offenders for a gang-related joint enterprise murder were safe. The judge had not erred in admitting evidence of relevant previous convictions and had properly directed the jury on accessorial liability. Sentences of detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure imposed on the three young offenders convicted of the murder were reduced to reflect their age and circumstances.

[2020] EWCA Crim 820
[2020] EWCA Crim 820
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Sweeney J, Murray J)
30 June 2020

A jury’s decisions to convict a defendant of oral rape but to acquit of vaginal rape were not irreconcilable where the victim had been asleep at commencement of the oral sex and had mistaken the offender for her boyfriend. Social media messages detailing the defendant’s involvement in a sexual conquest game were properly admitted as important explanatory evidence and evidence relevant to consent and the jury had been correctly directed as to the relevance of the messages.

[2020] UKPC 4
[2020] UKPC 4
PC (Bah) (Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden)
27 January 2020

An appellant challenging his conviction for rape 23 years after the trial could not rely on any lack of evidence resulting from his failure to obtain samples to carry out DNA testing. Any request for samples he had made during the trial had not been pursued. There had been no failure to disclose by the prosecution: the appellant had been made aware 18 months before trial of the prosecution’s expert evidence on DNA. The appellant had not been prevented from obtaining his own expert report.

[2019] EWCA Crim 2145
[2019] EWCA Crim 2145
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Jacobs J, Judge Munro QC)
5 December 2019

When dismissing an appeal against a conviction for conspiracy to corrupt, the Court of Appeal made general observations on the purpose and nature of the summing-up of facts and the scope of a trial judge’s task in that respect.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1318
[2019] EWCA Crim 1318
CA (Crim Div) (Gross LJ, McGowan J, Butcher J)
23 July 2019

A company was denied leave to appeal against its conviction for conspiracy to corrupt even though two directors who had constituted its “directing mind and will” (DMW) were not present at trial and did not give evidence. Their absence did not render the trial unfair, given that a company was a separate legal entity and there was no rule of law or practice which required a DMW to be indicted with the company or to be available at trial to give evidence.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1094
[2019] EWCA Crim 1094
CA (Crim Div) (Males LJ, Simler J, Murray J)
21 June 2019

In a trial of wounding with intent contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.18, the judge had been entitled not to leave to the jury an alternative count of simple wounding under s.20. The defendant’s position was not that he was guilty under s.20 having stabbed the victim without intending to cause really serious harm, but that he was not guilty at all. Accordingly, s.20 had not been an obvious alternative count.

[2019] EWCA Crim 545
[2019] EWCA Crim 545
CA (Crim Div) (Rafferty LJ, Goss J, Sir Brian Keith)
2 April 2019

The jury directions given at the trial of a well-known publicist for historical sexual offences had not been inadequate or unfair, and his conviction for indecent assault was safe.

CA (Crim Div) (Sharp LJ, Goose J, Recorder of Newcastle)
12 March 2019

A judge’s summing up had not been so unbalanced as to render a defendant’s conviction for buggery unsafe.

[2018] EWCA Crim 2606
[2018] EWCA Crim 2606
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Lewis J, Judge Lodder QC)
23 November 2018

Although a judge had unnecessarily and improperly intervened during a defendant’s examination-in-chief, the interventions were not so significant as to materially impair the defendant’s ability to put his case before the jury. The judge’s interventions, combined with deficiencies in his summing-up, had not deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Stuart-Smith J, May J)
10 October 2018

It was best practice for a judge to direct a jury before the cross-examination of a vulnerable witness that limitations had been placed on the defence counsel and to explain after the cross-examination the type of issues which the defendant would have wished to explore in further detail. Such directions should be repeated in the summing up.

Scroll to top