A trial judge's repeated interruptions during defence counsel's cross-examination of a key prosecution witness will not result in a miscarriage of justice where the interruptions have a proper basis (directed at form rather than substance of questions), are not aggressive or belligerent, do not materially disrupt the flow of cross-examination, and the summing up is balanced with appropriate directions. Misdirections in a summing up may be adequately corrected by redirection, including where the correction is given at the conclusion of the summing up in the presence of the jury.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.