It was a procedural irregularity for the trial judge not to have summed-up the evidence. Counsels' closing speeches were no substitute for a judicial and impartial review of the facts from the trial judge who was responsible for ensuring that an accused had a fair trial.

CA (Crim Div) (Henry LJ, Hidden J, Astill J)

27/03/2000

0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar