Butt, R v

Defence counsel must present the accused’s case fearlessly, but must also avoid wasted time, repetition and prolixity. Counsel need put the important and relevant features of the defence to a witness, not every peripheral matter.

A trial judge may impose a reasonable time limit on evidence or cross-examination where questioning has become prolix or repetitious. Such limits should not be routine, but fair-trial rights are compatible with firm judicial control of the trial timetable. An appellate court will not interfere with a trial-management decision unless it has plainly caused unfairness.

The appellant was convicted at Croydon Crown Court on 23 January 2004 of rape and was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. The principal factual issue at trial was whether the complainant had consented to intercourse, although the appellant also disputed full penetration.

During the complainant’s cross-examination, defence counsel spent substantial time on background matters before conducting a detailed challenge to the allegation. The trial judge then directed counsel to complete the cross-examination within ten minutes and stopped it when the time expired.

The appeal against conviction alleged that the time limit prevented proper cross-examination and denied the appellant a fair trial.

Appeal dismissed.

1. The court held that defence counsel’s duty to present an accused’s case fearlessly does not require every peripheral point to be put to a witness. Counsel must distinguish the important and relevant features of the defence from minor or unnecessary matters. This accords with the balance identified in R v McFadden 62 Cr.App.R 187 and Kalia 60 Cr.App.R 200.

2. A trial judge is entitled, and where questioning becomes prolix and repetitious may be obliged, to impose reasonable time limits. Limits on cross-examination should rarely be necessary where counsel perform their duty properly, but a fair trial is compatible with effective judicial control of time. The court applied the trial-management principles in R v Chaaban [2003] EWCA Crim. 1012.

3. The judge had exercised that power fairly. Counsel had spent about two hours cross-examining the complainant, had tested the allegation and put the appellant’s account in detail, and had moved to relatively unimportant matters when the ten-minute limit was imposed. The suggested further points could and should have been put during the ample time already available.

4. Trial management involves judgment and discretion, and the trial judge is better placed than an appellate court to assess what fairness requires. Intervention is justified only where the decision has plainly produced unfairness. No unfairness arose here, so the conviction stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Appeal against conviction dismissed: [2005] EWCA Crim 805.
• Crown Court at Croydon — On 23 January 2004, the appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.