R -v- Natalia Copsey: R -v- Graham William Copsey [2008] EWCA Crim Rim 2043 

The appellants appealed against their convictions for taking part in the management of a company whilst disqualified, and aided and abetting, counselling and procuring the commission of the offence (in respect of Mrs Copsey).

The grounds for the appeal related to the judge's alleged interference in the trial and in particular, with the manner in which he appeared to suggest he had sided himself with the prosecution. The first ground of appeal was that the judge had made disparaging and prejudicial remarks about important defence evidence and was therefore likely to have influenced the jury and unfairly prejudiced them against the appellants. The second ground of appeal was that the judge made excessive and prejudicial interventions during the course of the evidence of the appellants, with the result that he would have been perceived by the jury as not believing or accepting their case.

During the course of the appeal, it was pointed out that the judge had asked 60 questions during Mr Copsey's examination in chief and 50 during his cross-examination. In addition, he had asked 57 questions during the examination in chief of Mrs Copsey and 36 during her cross-examination. Counsel for the appellants accepted that the judge was entitled to ask questions when appropriate in order to clarify matters for himself and that many of the questions which had been asked by the judge were unobjectionable. The issue for the court was the nature of the judge's questioning and interventions in order to determine whether the appellants had a fair trial.

In considering the appeal the court was particularly troubled by the repeated questions of the judge which were in the nature of cross-examination. There was further concern regarding the use of particular words by the judge including the words "puzzled" and "bizarre". The judge appeared to question Mr Copsey in a hostile manner.

During the course of the trial, the judge apologised in the absence of the jury. He refused to apologise in the presence of the jury as he felt that this would only focus the attention of the jury on the issue. In his summing up, the judge reminded the jury that questions of facts were for them and that they should ignore any view or apparent view that the judge might have expressed during the trial.

The court held that this was a case in which the judge by his comments and the manner of his questioning, gave the clear impression to the jury that he doubted the case for Mr Copsey. The judge had taken on the role of cross-examining in the way that is more suitable for prosecuting counsel than for a judge. The frequency and nature of the questioning was of particular concern as was the use of certain words (as stated above).

The court concluded that the appellant did not have a fair trial and his conviction was unsafe. It followed that the conviction of Mrs Copsey was also unsafe. The appeals were allowed and the convictions were quashed.

Teresa Murphy is a barrister in Blake Lapthorn's Professional Regulatory team. Please contact her on 0207 814 5403, or email her at teresa.murphy@bllaw.co.uk

-------------

To read other articles in the latest edition of the Professional Regulatory ebulletin or view/download the bulletin in its entirety, click on the links in the right-hand margin at the top of the page.