Cameron Beresford v Regina

Judicial interventions must preserve the judge’s impartial role. An intervention may properly clarify evidence or control the trial, but it becomes impermissible when it amounts to cross-examination, conveys an adverse view of the defence, or prevents a fair presentation of the accused’s case.

The appellate court must assess the combined effect of irregular interventions and material defects in directions. A fair criminal trial is an absolute requirement. Where the cumulative effect makes the trial unfair, the conviction is unsafe even if individual errors would not alone justify quashing it.

The appellant was convicted by a 10–2 majority in the Crown Court at Truro of anal rape of his then girlfriend at a music festival. His case was that anal penetration occurred accidentally during consensual vaginal intercourse.

He appealed against conviction, alleging unfair and impermissible judicial interventions, misdirections concerning bad character, alcohol and a possible motive for a false complaint, and a jury irregularity. The prosecution accepted that some of the judge’s comments and one intervention were improper, but contended that the conviction remained safe.

The central issue was whether the cumulative effect of the trial judge’s conduct and the identified defects had deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction was quashed because the combined effect of the judge’s impermissible interventions made the trial unfair and therefore rendered the conviction unsafe.

2. A judge may intervene to clarify ambiguity, ensure that evidence is accurately recorded, enforce an evidential ruling, and control improper questioning. The judge must not, however, descend into the arena by conducting cross-examination or by conveying an adverse view of the accused’s defence. Here, the judge’s questioning about a supposedly playful “no”, the prepared statement, and the text messages crossed that line. It effectively advanced the prosecution case and portrayed the appellant’s account unfavourably.

3. The Court assessed fairness cumulatively. The improper interventions were especially serious because they concerned the central issues and occurred before the jury. They were compounded by omissions in the summing up. Although a direction that drunken intent remains intent was legally accurate, fairness required an accompanying, issue-specific direction that a drunken accident remains an accident. The direction on a possible motive for a false complaint should also have reminded the jury of the appellant’s actual case on motive.

4. The propensity direction based on the incident in Spain was permissible. Evidence admitted through one gateway under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 may be used under another gateway. A judge should ordinarily discuss a proposed bad-character direction with counsel, particularly where it concerns a different gateway, but the circulated draft and the absence of substantive objection meant that this direction did not distort either case.

5. There was no permissible basis to find a jury irregularity. The post-verdict complaint was unsupported by the inconclusive investigation and the record of the jury’s deliberations.

6. Retrial ordered. Despite delay, imprisonment, and the appellant’s personal difficulties, the interests of justice required a fair retrial for both the complainant and the appellant. The retrial was directed to take place at Plymouth or Exeter.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeal against conviction, quashed the conviction as unsafe, and ordered a retrial.

• Crown Court at Truro — following a trial before His Honour Judge Carr, convicted the appellant by a 10–2 majority verdict on 18 October 2019 of anal rape.