A judge had not erred when summing up
ADEQUACY OF SUMMING UP
Where a judge had been entitled to allow certain DNA evidence, and the interpretation of it by the Crown’s witness, to go before a jury, and his summing up in respect of that evidence had been adequate, there was no reason to doubt the safety of the appellant’s convictions for possession of a prohibited firearm and causing grievous bodily harm.
The criticisms of the summing up in a murder case were unfounded and overall the summing up was a clear and careful analysis of the evidence. The conviction was safe and soundly based on the evidence before the court.
Convictions for rape and grievous bodily harm were safe where the jury had reached their verdicts having heard all the evidence and having been sufficiently directed in the summing up.
The trial judge had not directed the jury that a person might be dishonest, for the purposes of an offence of false accounting, as a consequence of recklessness and the appellant’s conviction was safe.