R v Bachra

This matter concerned an application for permission to appeal against conviction by Manjit Singh Bachra, who had been convicted by a jury in the District Court of various offences including assault, aggravated assault, robbery, aggravated robbery, and blackmail. The prosecution's case was that Bachra engaged in a course of conduct involving demands, violence, and threats, leading the victim to part with money and property over several days. Bachra did not give or call evidence at trial.

The central legal issue before the appellate court was whether the trial Judge's summing up to the jury created a real risk of a miscarriage of justice. Specifically, the applicant argued that the Judge made strong and unfavourable comments, posed rhetorical questions, and presented counterpropositions that unfairly undermined the defence case, despite directing the jury that they were the sole judges of fact. The applicant contended that the cumulative effect of these comments, when contrasted with the Judge's treatment of the prosecution's arguments, indicated a lack of proper balance in the summing up.

The appellate court acknowledged that many judges might not have commented as firmly or as often as the trial Judge did. However, the court emphasised that the law permits considerable latitude to a trial judge in determining the best approach to assist the jury. The ultimate question was not whether the Judge expressed an opinion or whether comments were adverse to the defence, but rather whether there was a real risk that the Judge overawed the jurors or deterred them from making their own independent decisions, thereby suggesting they would be wrong to disagree with the Judge.

Permission to appeal was granted as the issue raised warranted the court's consideration. However, the appeal itself was dismissed. The court was not persuaded that the summing up, when considered as a whole, had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.