R v Webb

The case of R v Webb before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand involved an appeal against the conviction of Wayne Karl Webb for indecent assault on an 11-year-old girl. The appeal focused on the summing up by the trial judge, which the appellant's counsel argued had effectively undermined the defence case, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The court was required to determine whether the comments made by the trial judge during the summing up were appropriate and whether they had adequately preserved the integrity of the defence.

The court examined the trial judge's comments, particularly those interspersed with the presentation of the defence case. The comments suggested that the complainant's concession that the assault could have been accidental should not be given significant weight, and they seemed to undermine the defence's argument that the act could have been accidental. The court held that the trial judge's comments, while permissible in expressing his own views on the evidence, had not been clearly distinguished from the legal directions and had gone beyond what was legitimate. This resulted in the defence case being presented inadequately to the jury.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge's comments had failed to fairly put the defence case before the jury, particularly in the context where the possibility of an accidental act was a viable defence. The comments had the effect of demeaning the defence and supporting the complainant's evidence, which was not appropriate in the summing up. The court found that the appellant had not received a fair trial and, therefore, allowed the appeal against conviction. The conviction was set aside, and a retrial was directed. The decision left it to the Crown to determine whether a retrial should proceed, given that the appellant had already served his sentence.