Page 426 - Magistrates Conference 2019

Page 18

circumscribed discretion but Mr Whittam invited us to view this observation in the light of subsequent statutory
developments.

CONCLUSIONS

(a) Purpose of the summing up

61. We begin our conclusions with the purpose of the summing up. Pitchford LJ describes the purpose of the
summing up in his 2010 Bench Book in this way:

"The task of the trial judge in summing up is to present the law and a summary of the evidence in such a way as best to
enable the jury to reach a just conclusion. That can be achieved only if the trial judge communicates effectively to the
jury the issues which they need to resolve and their legitimate approach to the evidence relevant to those issues."

62. However, effective communication depends upon a judge being allowed to focus on the issues and the applicable
law. There has been an unfortunate tendency in recent years to require judges to direct juries at length on matters which
most would regard as matters of common sense: this has been frequently restated by this court (see for example the
judgment of this court given by Lord Phillips CJ in R v Campbell [2007] 1 WLR 2798 at paragraphs 21-25).
Summings-up have become overly long and complicated as a result. This is more likely to prove a hindrance to a just
outcome than a help.

63. Sir Brian Leveson, President of the Queen's Bench Division, observed in his Review of Efficiency in Criminal
Proceedings at para 285.

"The role, desirability and efficiency of judicial summing up of the facts at the end of a case have been questioned by
many, both here and abroad. In the current climate, shortening the duration of trials through a focus on the issues in the
case and by more effective trial management is a proper goal. That focus on shortening trial lengths properly leads to a
consideration of a number of procedural issues surrounding the way in which the jury are assisted by advocates and
Judge. Most significant concerns the need for the trial Judge to sum up the facts of the case which is an exercise that can
add hours, days or, in extreme cases, weeks to the length of a trial"

64. A judge's directions on good character relate to the law not the facts; nevertheless the extension of the
circumstances in which advocates demand of judges a direction on good character has not helped effective trial
management. It has led to lengthy discussions at trial about directions to juries, some convoluted directions to a jury,
and a flood of applications for leave to appeal. As stated in the current edition of the Bench Book at page 162:

"The application of the (good character) principles is not always straightforward in practice. The exercise of judgement
as to the terms in which the good character direction will be framed usually arises where the defendant argues that he
should be treated as being of good character notwithstanding the presence of (usually minor and/or spent) convictions or
where a defendant with previous convictions seeks a favourable direction as to propensity".

65. Our review of the case law leaves us in no doubt that those observations are justified. The application of the
principles is not straightforward; attempts by this court to promote consistency of approach have failed.