Principles of Summing-up
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300517 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Court
of
Appeal
Principles of Summing-up
Rv
Farr
(1999)
163JP
193
The appellant and his wife bought ahotel in Torquay and leased it to
acompany which they had incorporated (and owned), at a rent of
£36,000 pa payable to them. The company sold to members of the public
on a time-share basis the room-weeks which were available. The agree-
ments with the members of the public were to the effect that they would
pay a lump sum which would be returned after 15 years and, for the
short periods of use each year, a maintenance charge fixed from time to
time by the appellant. The company having gone into liquidation, the
appellant was charged with offences. of fraudulent trading, on two of
which he was convicted, namely, trading with intent to defraud credi-
tors
and
failing to give the liquidator documents of the company
when
it was wound up. After a 13-day trial, in which it appeared that he
had
removed
£~m
for his own use, he was convicted and sentenced to five
years' imprisonment, with compensation and disqualification orders.
On appeal, it was argued that the conviction was unsafe on a
number
of grounds. It was said that, although the judge mentioned the fact that
the appellant was of good character, he so belittled the importance of
that fact that his direction upon the law was completely neutralised by
his indication to the jury of his
own
opinion of the appellant's credibility
and dishonesty.
It
was also complained that
when
the appellant came to
give his evidence as to his intention to repay the time-sharers' capital,
the judge's persistent questions left the jury in no doubt that he had a
very poor opinion of the appellant's
character-and
that, in a case in
which
the
vital question was as to his honesty. But the major issue raised
before the Court of Appeal was whether the summing-up was fair. The
appellant's argument was that the very fact that the judge summed-up a
13-day trial in an
hour
was in itself an indication that he had failed to
put
adequately to the jury the whole of the defendant's case, particularly
as so
much
of that time was spent in stressing the points made by the
prosecution. The fact that the salient features of the defence were
not
mentioned to the jury was (it was claimed) in itself an indication that the
summing-up was unbalanced and unfair, so that the conviction was
unsafe.
HELD,
ALLOWING
THE
APPEAL
the conviction should be quashed. The
convictions were thought to be unsafe by reason of the
fad
that it could
not be said with any degree of assurance that, had the jury been directed
more fully as to the defence on which the appellant had relied, it would
have convicted, even though the case for the prosecution was un-
doubtedly (and admittedly) very strong. As the vital question was that of
honesty,
and
that depended on the
truth
of the appellant's assertion
that he had always intended to return to the time-sharers their capital,
the question of the significance of good character was obviously of
422
To continue reading
Request your trial