Bryant, R. v

A criminal trial is unfair where the judge’s conduct gives the jury the impression that the judge favours the prosecution over the defence. A judge may robustly require counsel to proceed efficiently, and may comment on the evidence in summing up, provided that the issues remain for the jury. However, judicial impatience, demeanour and unequal treatment of witnesses must not undermine the judge’s cold neutrality. Where the cumulative effect of such conduct creates an appearance of partiality, the conviction cannot safely stand.

The appellant was convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, wounding with intent and affray following a violent street incident. The prosecution and defence gave directly conflicting accounts about who had been the aggressors. The appellant relied on self-defence.

He appealed against conviction and sentence. The sole ground pursued was that the trial judge had made the trial unfair by descending into the arena, displaying hostility towards the defence and treating defence witnesses differently from prosecution witnesses. The court considered the transcript, the recording of one witness’s evidence, witness statements about the judge’s demeanour, and the Crown’s concession as to the impression that demeanour would have conveyed to the jury.

1. Appeal allowed. The convictions were quashed because the trial judge’s conduct created an impermissible impression that he favoured the prosecution case.

2. A trial judge is entitled, and obliged, to ensure that a case proceeds at a reasonable pace. Robust interventions directed to counsel’s slow questioning did not, viewed from the transcript alone, deprive the appellant of a fair trial. Nor did the challenged passages of the summing-up, considered in isolation or as a whole, go beyond permissible judicial comment. The summing-up left the issues for the jury.

3. The decisive complaint concerned demeanour and the contrasting treatment of witnesses. The Crown accepted that the judge’s behaviour and tone would have left the jury with the impression that he favoured the prosecution. A judge may fairly present a strong prosecution or defence case as such, but must present the evidence as a balanced whole. The judge must not, by conduct or unequal treatment of witnesses, lead the jury to think that he prefers one side, particularly the prosecution, to the other.

4. That failure to maintain judicial neutrality rendered the convictions unsafe. The court ordered a new trial on all three counts on a fresh indictment, with re-arraignment within two months. The appellant’s bail application was adjourned urgently to a Circuit Judge at Snaresbrook Crown Court.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal in [2005] EWCA Crim 2079, quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 18 May 2004, convicted the appellant of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, wounding with intent and affray, and imposed concurrent sentences including eight years’ imprisonment.