JURY DIRECTIONS

While a judge’s summing-up could have been more clearly expressed, it was not confusing, did not advocate the prosecution case and it did not render the trial unfair. Trial judges were reminded of the guidance and draft directions contained in the Crown Court Compendium. Those directions provided judges with an invaluable resource which, when adapted to the facts of a case, provided an appropriate framework for a legally correct direction.

After receiving a note indicating that a juror in a rape trial might not make a decision but just go with the majority, the judge should have told the jury that each member had to consider the evidence and reach a verdict according to his or her view of the material. The subsequent conviction by a majority was not, however, unsafe as the foreman had made it unequivocally clear that 10 jurors had agreed and two had disagreed.

The fact that an intermediary had provided physical and emotional support to a vulnerable and distressed complainant during a rape trial did not result in a serious risk of unfairness to the defendant. Both counsel and the judge had warned the jury to approach the complainant’s evidence untrammelled by sympathy.

An appellant’s conviction for rape was safe where there was substantial evidence before the jury that the victim was intoxicated and incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse with him. There was no presumption that the conviction was unsafe because the judge did not give a good character direction.

Two appeals against conviction for the sexual abuse of children were dismissed. Although the judge should not have allowed the jury to return their verdicts piecemeal, that had not affected the overall safety of the convictions. However, in trials of sexual abuse cases involving multiple counts, trial judges should invite the jury not to return their verdicts until they had concluded their deliberations on all counts.

In a criminal case concerning historical sexual offences, the judge had not favoured the prosecution in his directions to the jury, and the appellate court was not left with any sense of unease about the safety of the convictions.

In a high-profile case concerning historical sexual offences, the trial judge had not erred in her approach to pre-trial publicity, had properly summed up the defence case, and had given the jury proper directions as to the burden and standard of proof, lies and inconsistencies.

Although a judge had, without hearing submissions, given a Watson direction which deviated from the approved wording, the direction did not render a conviction for rape unsafe. Whether and when to give a direction was a matter for the judge’s discretion, provided that it was given in a way which did not put pressure on jurors.

A judge had not erred in permitting the prosecution to adduce evidence of an offender’s bad character, relating to conduct forming the basis of a charge for sexual assault, of which he was acquitted, after it had closed its case as the defence had not yet opened its case. The judge had also directed the jury fairly on the similarities and dissimilarities between the previous incident and the index offence.