- 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
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.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial