R v John Allcock & Anor
[2023] EWCA Crim 1010
R v Leon Shortt
13 September 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1041
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of drug offences, and his lawyer said the judge was unfair during the trial. The appeals court looked at what happened and decided that even though the judge made some mistakes, they weren't big enough to make the trial unfair. The conviction was upheld.
Key Facts
- •Leon Shortt was convicted of various drug offences on October 4, 2023.
- •The conviction was appealed based on the trial judge's alleged interventions, comments, and inappropriate behaviour.
- •The appeal focused on the trial transcript and audio recordings.
- •The charges included being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs (crack cocaine and heroin) and Class B drugs (cannabis), and possession of criminal property.
- •The defence argued Shortt was only involved in supplying Class B drugs.
- •The trial lasted three days and concluded within its time estimate.
Legal Principles
Unfairness in a trial is assessed objectively, considering the degree of departure from good practice. Even an obviously guilty defendant is entitled to a fair trial.
R v Michel [2010] UKPC 41, R v Myers [2018] EWCA Crim 2191, Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23
A judge's role is to remain neutral, avoiding appearing to take sides during witness questioning. However, judges are permitted and expected to ask clarifying questions.
R v Tuegel [2000] 2 Cr App R 361, R v Michel [2010] UKPC 41, R v Myers [2018] EWCA Crim 2191
Judicial bullying is unacceptable and affects public confidence in the administration of justice. Corrective remarks should be proportionate and measured.
In Re AZ [2022] EWCA Civ 911
Allegations of apparent bias are assessed objectively using the 'fair-minded and informed observer' test.
Porter v Magill [2002] AC 357
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
While the Court of Appeal identified some instances of inappropriate judicial behaviour (excessive intervention, loss of temper), these were deemed insufficient to render the trial unfair. The judge's actions did not significantly impact the defence or unduly influence the jury. The majority of complaints were found to lack substance.