Michael Woodcock v R

A summing-up is not defective merely because it is brief. It must, however, be fair, balanced and sufficiently coherent to remind the jury of the principal points relied on by both sides, including matters said to undermine the complainant’s credibility.

Judicial comments must not invite speculative psychological reasoning or present disputed evidence in a way that favours one party. A summing-up may render a conviction unsafe where it leaves the defence case unclear and contains unfair comments, particularly where the prosecution case was not overwhelming and the verdict was not inevitable.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Peterborough of five counts of rape alleged to have been committed against his sister between 1963 and 1969. The first jury failed to agree. At the second trial, the appellant was convicted on all counts by a majority of 10 to 2.

He appealed by leave of the single judge. The grounds challenged the adequacy and balance of the judge’s factual summing-up, alleging that important defence points were omitted or presented unfairly. No complaint was made about the directions of law. The central issue was whether the summing-up gave the jury a fair and sufficient account of the competing cases.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were quashed.

1. Required content of a summing-up. Brevity is not itself a defect, and a trial judge need not recount every detail of the evidence. The jury must nevertheless be reminded of the principal points relied on by the prosecution and the defence, including points said to undermine the complainant’s credibility. In a lengthy and difficult trial, those points should be presented coherently and without inappropriate comment.
2. Unfair comments. The judge was entitled to tell the jury that they were not psychiatrists and should not speculate. It was nevertheless inappropriate to invite them to consider whether the defendant had become a sexual predator because of his father’s violence. The account of the Florida holiday was also seriously unfair because it did not present neutrally the respective significance attributed by the prosecution and defence to the photographs, separate villas and alleged body language.
3. Effect of the concluding comment. The judge’s final suggestion that, if the jury rejected the financial-motive explanation, there was nothing left of the defence indicated that rejection of that explanation left no substance in the defence case. That was an unfair judicial comment rather than a neutral summary of the prosecution’s submission.
4. Safety of the convictions. The summing-up presented a clear and coherent prosecution case but did not do the same for the defence. The deficiencies could not be disregarded. The case was not so overwhelming that guilty verdicts were inevitable, as reinforced by the earlier jury’s failure to agree and the second jury’s 10 to 2 majority. The convictions were therefore unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 333, the appeal against conviction was allowed and the convictions were quashed.
• Crown Court at Peterborough: The first jury was discharged after failing to agree. At the second trial, the appellant was convicted on all five counts by a majority of 10 to 2.
• Subsequent proceedings: The Court of Appeal ordered a retrial. The judgment records that the appellant was acquitted on all counts at a retrial before the Crown Court at Cambridge on 1 May 2024.