Hussain, R v

Where an accused has not given evidence, the trial judge must summarise the material defence contained in pre-trial statements and interviews, together with any assistance derived from the Crown evidence. The judge need not construct the defence or repeat every point made in closing submissions. The timing and form of the summary are matters for the judge, provided that the accused’s key submissions are explained at a convenient point in the summing up. Whether that duty has been met is assessed by considering the summing up as a whole.

The appellant was convicted at Bradford Crown Court of conspiracy to defraud arising from fraudulent business loans obtained from the National Westminster Bank. The prosecution alleged that he had acted as an insider by sanctioning accounts used in the fraud. He denied involvement and did not give evidence.

His appeal against conviction was permitted on one ground: whether the trial judge had failed adequately to put his case before the jury. The appellant contended that the judge should have drawn together a number of arguments undermining the evidence of a co-conspirator and highlighting the limited nature of his banking role.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge adequately put the appellant’s case before the jury.
2. Where a defendant does not give evidence, a judge must summarise the relevant defence emerging from pre-trial accounts and any helpful Crown evidence. The judge is not required to construct the defence for the accused: R v Hillier & Farrar (1993) 97 Cr App R 349.
3. The timing and form of the defence summary depend on the circumstances. It may be gathered in one part of the summing up or addressed incrementally, but the key submissions must be explained at a convenient stage: R v Singh-Mann [2014] EWCA Crim 717.
4. Here, the judge had clearly summarised the appellant’s contention that the case rested on the unreliable evidence of Choudry Zeb. The judge also explained the limited account-sanctioning role, rehearsed the extensive cross-examination of Zeb, and reviewed the appellant’s police interviews and his asserted lack of involvement in the individual loans.
5. The judge was not obliged to make every point advanced in closing speech or to repeat all relevant matters at the end of the summing up. Considered as a whole, the summing up made the core of the appellant’s case clear to the jury.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against conviction: [2016] EWCA Crim 547.
• Bradford Crown Court — convicted the appellant of conspiracy to defraud on 6 May 2015. No citation for that decision was stated.