HL Deb 14 July 1997 vol 581 cc98-9WA
Baroness Mallalieu

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will consult about and consider whether a judge presiding over a criminal trial should continue to sum up the facts in the case as well as directing the jury in relation to the law.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)

The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which reported in 1993, considered the extent to which the judge should refer to the facts of the case in the course of his summing up, including whether he should sum up the facts of a case at all. The Royal Commission concluded that it would not be sensible to lay down a rule on how far a judge should sum up the facts of a case, as the circumstances will vary from case to case, but agreed with the views of the Court of Appeal inR v Wilson and recommended that judges should not have to give a summary of the evidence for and against the prosecution in every case.

When consulted about this recommendation, the senior judiciary took the view that they were already making full use of the flexibility they currently possess, which enables them to include in their summing up only those facts of the case which they consider necessary. In the case of Brower [1995] Crim LR 746, which was heard after the Royal Commission reported, the Court of Appeal took the view that in the majority of cases it was necessary for the judge to sum up on the facts in order to assist the jury and ensure a fair trial.

In these circumstances, the Government have no plans to consult further on this proposal.