Michael Woodcock v R
[2023] EWCA Crim 333
R v Aaron Hewson
3 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1657
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexual offences, but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision because the judge who summarized the case for the jury was too biased towards the prosecution. The judge made too many comments that seemed to favor the accusers, so the conviction wasn't fair.
Key Facts
- •Appellant convicted of three counts of sexual assault and one count of assault by penetration.
- •Appeal based on allegedly unbalanced summing-up favoring the prosecution.
- •Three complainants (HS, KR, KD) involved, all dancers who were friends.
- •Appellant and HS were in a relationship.
- •Allegations involved incidents at HS's house.
- •Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of extreme pornographic images (Count 7).
- •Defense argued collusion and fabrication by complainants.
- •Defense relied on HS resuming sexual relations with the appellant after the allegations.
- •Appellant's account involved consensual sex with KD.
Legal Principles
Judge must not act as an advocate; interventions should not invite the jury to disbelieve the defense, prevent counsel from presenting the defense, or prevent the defendant from doing himself justice.
R v Hulusi (1974) 58 CAR 378; R v Hamilton (1969, unreported)
The summing up must strike a fair balance between prosecution and defense cases. Judges should remain impartial, leaving factual decisions to the jury. While judges can comment on the evidence, this must be objective and impartial, avoiding the appearance of advocacy.
BKY v R [2023] EWCA Crim 1095; R v Haddon [2020] EWCA Crim 887; R v Merchant [2018] EWCA Crim 2606; R v Awil [2020] EWCA Crim 1802
The judge's summary of the evidence must deal with the essentials of the case and must be balanced.
Criminal Procedure Rules Part 25.14
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed on all counts except Count 7 (plea of guilty).
Summing-up was unfairly unbalanced, favoring the prosecution. The judge's comments, even if prefaced with "you may think," gave the impression of the judge's own views and undermined the defense case. The cumulative effect cast doubt on the safety of the convictions.