In a case which turned on the correctness of a visual identification, the judge had erred in failing to give the jury a proper warning about the general dangers of identification evidence and in failing to undertake a specific analysis of the potential weaknesses in the case.
ADEQUACY OF JUDGE’S SUMMING UP
Whilst it might have been better had a judge, in the course of his summing up, said a little more of the features of the case before him by way of evidence, rather than simply by summarising submissions, he had undoubtedly given clear directions on the issues that the jury had to decide. A defendant’s convictions for obtaining services by deception, fraud and attempting to pervert the course of justice were, accordingly, safe.
The defendant’s conviction for child abduction was unsafe where the summing up to the jury had been insufficient by failing to reflect the correct basis on which the case against him should have been advanced.
The causal link between the appellant’s assistance to the perpetrator of a crime was not broken by a delay of 13 hours and indecision on the part of the perpetrator.