Court of Appeal Quashes Convictions in R v Aaron Hewson Due to Unbalanced Summing-Up
Introduction
The case of R v Aaron Hewson before the Court of Appeal concerns the conviction of the appellant, Aaron Hewson, on charges of sexual assault and assault by penetration. Upon appeal, the court examined the summing-up by the trial judge for fairness and balance, ultimately finding that the cumulative effect of various comments and omissions by the judge rendered the convictions unsafe.
Key Facts
Aaron Hewson was convicted of three counts of sexual assault and one count of assault by penetration, with the offences allegedly occurring in 2017. The prosecution’s case was based on the evidence and testimonies of three complainants, HS, KR, and KD. Hewson’s defence suggested collusion and fabrication of evidence among the complainants. After his conviction, Hewson appealed on grounds that the trial judge’s summing-up was biased in favor of the prosecution. The appellant argued that the judge made comments that were adverse to the defence case, failed to remind the jury of material defence evidence, and failed to provide a balanced summing-up.
Legal Principles
Several legal principles emerged from this case, heavily relying on precedent established in prior cases.
-
Impartiality of the Judge: It is long-established that a judge should not descend into the arena of advocacy or give the impression of taking sides (BKY v R [2023] EWCA Crim 1095; R v Hulusi 58 CAR 378).
-
Role of the Jury as Fact-Finders: The judge must not usurp the role of the jury by suggesting what conclusions they should draw on matters for them to determine, as emphasized by the Criminal Procedure Rules and related cases (R v Haddon [2020] EWCA Crim 887; R v Merchant [2018] EWCA Crim 2606).
-
Commentary on Evidence: While judges may comment on evidence, they must do so with balance and fairness, avoiding any appearance of bias or advocacy (R v Awil [2020] EWCA Crim 1802).
-
Summing-Up and Reminders to the Jury: In the summing-up, the judge should remind the jury of vital evidence that supports or undermines either party’s case, especially if emphasis was given to points in favor of one side (R v Haddon [2020] EWCA Crim 887).
-
Right to Cure Deficiencies in Summing-Up: Counsel have a duty to assist the court by correcting erroneous directions, but the nature of the complaint may sometimes encompass the overall impression of the summing-up, which may not be easily rectifiable in the moment (R v Aaron Hewson).
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal found the summing-up by the trial judge to be imbalanced and unfair, containing multiple instances where the judge appeared to adopt a prosecutorial stance by using suggestive language and failing to highlight inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
The court applied the principle from BKY v R stating the necessity of avoiding the impression of judicial advocacy. It was determined that the trial judge’s repeated adverse comments towards the defence and the failure to remind the jury of crucial points presented by the defence led to a real risk that the jury would perceive the judge as supporting the prosecution’s case.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions on all counts related to sexual offences, stating that the improper summing-up undermined the safety of the verdicts.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Aaron Hewson serves as a reaffirmation of the fundamental principles of judicial conduct and the imperative that judges preserve an appearance of impartiality and ensure fairness in summing-up. The case underscores the importance of balance in presenting cases for and against the prosecution and defence, as well as the crucial role of the jury as independent arbiters of facts. The judgment offers guidance for judges on the cautious and judicious commentary on evidence and reinforces the responsibility of counsel to address any imbalances or misdirection, even when such criticisms are challenging to articulate in real-time.