A trial judge's summing-up must exhibit judicial balance; where the judge advances arguments favourable to the Crown as the judge's own opinion while presenting defence arguments only as counsel's submissions, the summing-up lacks the requisite balance and fairness. The introduction by a trial judge of a 'cover-up' hypothesis not advanced by the Crown is unwarranted and prejudicial, particularly in cases involving allegations of institutional sexual abuse where the risk of prejudice from religious divisions is high.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.