Criticism of a judge’s remarks made when giving a good character direction in a trial for violent disorder was unjustified. Taking the summing-up as a whole and analysing all that was said about the offender’s character, the summing-up did not render the jury’s guilty verdict unsafe.
ADEQUACY OF DIRECTIONS
It was open to a jury to convict an offender of murder and violent disorder on the basis of her participation in a joint enterprise where it was accepted that the offender had originally become party to the joint enterprise and the recorder had given the jury appropriate directions as to whether she had ceased to be part of the joint enterprise at the relevant time.
A judge had adequately directed the jury on the defence of duress and any broader a definition would have been an unjustifiable extension of the defence.
A judge’s directions on the issue of consent in the context of an alleged rape where the victim had been voluntarily intoxicated had been adequate and additional directions would only have served to confuse the jury further. The issue in the case came down to which individual had been telling the truth.