Legal News

The need to sum up the evidence in ‘short and simple’ cases (R v Ravinskiy)

The need to sum up the evidence in ‘short and simple’ cases (R v Ravinskiy)
Published on: 22 February 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • The need to sum up the evidence in ‘short and simple’ cases (R v Ravinskiy)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Corporate Crime analysis: The Court of Appeal has (once again) had to remind judges that, even in cases that can be described as ‘short and simple’, a fair and balanced summary of the evidence should be provided to the jury as part of the judge’s summing up. The Court of Appeal held that the judge’s approach to summing up was wrong in this case—it risked providing only a partial account to the jury; did not refer to the facts which were most exculpatory; created a risk that the jury may believe them to be only the facts of relevance; defence counsel had not been given the opportunity to address this deficiency in his speech; and the judge did not address the permissible inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Written by Nick Murphy, barrister at 25 Bedford Row. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents