[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Hussain, R v [2016] EWCA Crim 547 (28 April 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2016/547.html Cite as: [2016] EWCA Crim 547

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM Bradford Crown Court
HHJ Rose
T20137529

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		28/04/2016

Lord Justice Fulford :

Introduction

1. On the 6 May 2015 at the Crown Court at Bradford before Judge Rose and a jury, the appellant was convicted of conspiracy to defraud (count one on the trial indictment). He appeals against his conviction by leave of the single judge, on a single ground. The result of this appeal was announced at the end of the hearing (that the appeal was dismissed) and this is our reserved judgment.
2. In summary, the case forms part of 'Operation Bellum', an investigation into a fraud which involved business loans that were obtained from the National Westminster Bank. In the course of the investigation various offences came to light which were reflected in four separate indictments. The present case was the first to be tried, and it centred around a large number of business loans on which the borrower had defaulted shortly after they had been agreed.
3. It was the prosecution's case that the appellant and another bank employee, James Clegg, had conspired with others to create fictitious business accounts using stolen or borrowed identities. Loans were sought and obtained for non-existent businesses and, once the money had been removed from the business accounts, the fraudsters defaulted on the loans.
4. It is of note that there were convictions of other accused in relation to this indictment: James Clegg, Arfan Shah and Imran Shah were convicted as co-conspirators and Sarvjit Singh, Jaswinder Kaur and Shahid Iqbal were convicted of substantive counts of fraud, reflecting their involvement in discrete fraudulent applications.
5. One defendant, Choudry Zeb, pleaded guilty part way through the trial. He was subsequently called to give evidence, in circumstances that are summarised below.

The Facts

6. Early one morning in April 2012, Jean Holmes noticed a black bin bag inside her recycling bin on her driveway, which was full of bank documents (including items such as a bank paying-in book and a cheque-book), debit cards, photocopies of driving licences and passports. She reported the bag to the police who collected it. Imran Shah's fingerprints were found on two of the documents within the bag.
7. Coincidentally, a police investigation was already underway. The National Westminster Bank in Bradford had discovered that there had been default on an unusually high number of business loans, each in broadly similar circumstances. Accounts had been opened in a variety of names, and shortly thereafter loans of exactly £25,000 (the maximum amount a business manager at branch level is entitled to authorise) had been sought. In some cases, the applicants were successfully traced, and frequently they were unaware of the loans that had been obtained in their names. The fictitious business addresses to which the banking correspondence (including cheque-books and debit cards) were sent frequently did not match their home addresses.
8. The trial centred around fourteen business accounts, all of which had been opened with the approval of James Clegg, a business banking manager. As part of the account-opening process, proof of identification ought to have been provided to James Clegg by the customer, and he should have retained verified copies of the documents that he received. In many instances, however, the Crown was able to show how mere photocopies of identification documents had been seen by James Clegg. He was supposed to meet each applicant face to face, but various individuals who had been granted loans gave unchallenged evidence that they had never attended the bank or met with him. James Clegg had authority to grant loans up to the value of £25,000.
9. In addition, the Crown adduced evidence relating to the discovery on the bank's computer system of six suspicious customer profiles, all seemingly created by James Clegg. These profiles contained an identical contact telephone number: a number ending '1116', which was linked to three of the fraudulent loan applications. The '1116' number was also later found stored in the mobile telephone of James Clegg under the name 'Dean Martin'.
10. When a new customer applied for a loan account, it was the business manager's role to conduct 'due diligence' by verifying their identity in a face-to-face meeting. The application would then be referred to a 'New Account Sanctioner' (NAS) who was responsible for approving the opening of the account.
11. Eleven of the business accounts had been 'sanctioned' in this way by the appellant. However, at an early stage in the trial, it became clear that this was arguably a marginal role because it essentially involved no more than a check to ensure the paperwork was in order and that copies of the applicant's identification, which had been verified, had been filed. There was no documentary evidence to demonstrate that the appellant had been involved in creating the six germane customer profiles. On the evidence, the appellant had not made any relevant electronic enquiries; he had not been involved in opening the loan accounts, or authorising cash withdrawals from any of them; and the role of the NAS was to simply check that the proper paperwork had been acquired and completed properly.
12. Some of the fraudulently obtained funds were removed from the accounts by large cash withdrawals. If they were in excess of £10,000, the transaction required a manager's authorisation unless the cashier had been serving the customer for at least six months or had known them personally for at least twelve months. Some of the relevant withdrawals appeared to have been authorised by James Clegg.
13. As already indicated, one of the co-conspirators instrumental in the fraud was a man by the name of Imran Shah (his fingerprints had been found on two documents recovered from the bin-liner). Shah had previously worked at the National Westminster Bank alongside the appellant.
14. It was the Crown's case, therefore, that the appellant had abused his position by conspiring with others to defraud the bank out of large sums of money, and it was suggested that he was the principal 'inside man' at the bank.
15. The appellant was arrested on 25th April 2012. He was interviewed on a number of occasions. He indicated that he joined the bank in 1999, and by 2008 he was working as a business banking manager. He said that he worked closely with James Clegg who was his 'buddy' at work. He agreed that he had sanctioned the eleven particular loan accounts that he was shown; he suggested that the name on each account meant nothing to him but he could see from the paperwork that he had sanctioned these accounts.
16. He agreed that he had also previously opened an account (with no borrowing facilities) for a Shakil Khan, trading as Euro Finance Investments. This was an account through which some of the loan monies had been laundered. The appellant agreed that when opening the account, he would have had a face-to face meeting with the account holder. The Crown's case was this account was, in reality, operated by Arfan Shah (brother of Imran Shah) hiding behind the pseudonym Shakil Khan. We interpolate to observe that Choudry Zeb (who, as already indicated, was called by the Crown as a witness at trial) said in evidence that he had known Arfan Shah since he was a child, and that Arfan Shah used the name Shakil Khan when he opened accounts in the names of Euro Finance Investments and Global Repossessions (another account used to launder proceeds of this fraud).
17. Choudry Zeb was traced because his fingerprints were detected on items found in the recovered bin-liner. His wife's bank account had also been used to launder the proceeds of one of the loans. Following his arrest, Choudry Zeb was interviewed on ten separate occasions. He gave a different account in each interview and refused to answer many of the questions put to him. He made a number of statements about others during his interviews but these allegations were not investigated by the police as they appeared to be without foundation. Zeb was one of the defendants at the appellant's trial, but on the sixth day of the trial, he asked for the indictment to be put to him again and he pleaded guilty. He indicated through his advocate that he was willing to give evidence for the Crown. A witness statement was taken from him (the process was recorded on video) and his testimony, which became a central part of the prosecution case, took several days.
18. Choudry Zeb testified that in 2009, Imran Shah, who was an old friend, approached him and said that he knew a business bank manager called Anzar Hussain who could organise business loans, providing certain criteria were fulfilled. If Choudry Zeb introduced applicants for loans with a clean credit history then, once the loan had been withdrawn, the monies would be split between the conspirators. His evidence was to the effect that he told Imran Shah that he wished to meet the bank manager. Two days later, Imran Shah took him to the National Westminster bank to meet the appellant. They entered the bank through a side door not usually used for customers and they went to the appellant's office. There he was told about the lending criteria and the identification documents that were required. We note in passing that Hannah Laptew (the deputy bank manager at the National Westminster Bank at Bradford) gave evidence that in 2010 and 2011, the appellant and James Clegg both worked on the mezzanine floor of the Market Square branch. She said that there was a 'staff-only' door leading out into Piece Hall Yard. This door was normally locked and could only be opened from the inside. She believed that members of staff had a key. Having gone through it, a pass code was required to enter the mezzanine floor. She indicated that if an employee took a member of the public through this door, they would have committed a serious breach of security. This would make it, in her view, a remarkable step for any employee to take.
19. Choudry Zeb said that after this meeting he secured three applicants: Gemma Ellis, Grace Stefanidis and Alex Braybrook, in the circumstances summarised below. He did not meet James Clegg; indeed, Choudry Zeb claimed that Imran Shah had told him that James Clegg was unaware of this fraudulent activity.
20. Therefore, on Choudry Zeb's account, he became involved in a conspiracy along with the appellant and Imran Shah, and his role was to find people who were willing to agree to pose as an applicant for a business loan. The first transaction involved a man called Steven Fleming (who was the brother of his wife, Rebecca Zeb, and the boyfriend of Grace Stefanidis). He had told Fleming about the loans and Fleming indicated that a woman called Gemma Ellis was a potential applicant. Choudry Zeb said that although he never met Gemma Ellis, he was provided with the necessary documents in her name in order for an application to be made, albeit he could not recall who provided them. He passed them to Imran Shah who said that he gave them to the appellant. Imran Shah produced a loan agreement which required a signature. Choudry Zeb testified that he gave the agreement to the person who had provided the documents, and that individual later returned it bearing Gemma Ellis's signature. The signed agreement was returned to Imran Shah.
21. Choudry Zeb said that he was involved in another of the loans, albeit only at a very early stage. Although he denied making any money out of this loan, he said that the appellant, Imran Shah and Grace Stefanidis (the relevant applicant) wanted payment.
22. The final loan with which he admitted involvement concerned an applicant by the name Alex Braybrook. Choudry Zeb indicated that Alex Braybrook had contacted him to ask if he could obtain a loan for him. They had discussed the documents that would be needed and the following day Alex Braybrook provided his passport and a utility bill. Choudry Zeb gave these to Imran Shah, who in due course provided an application form for Mr Braybrook to complete and sign. Shortly thereafter, Imran Shah told him that the appellant had authorised a withdrawal of £20,000 and in consequence Choudry Zeb had taken Alex Braybrook to the bank to collect the money. Thereafter, Choudry Zeb gave evidence that Mr Braybrook had given between £2,000 and £3,000 to an unknown male, £2,000 to Choudry Zeb and the remainder had been split between Imran Shah and the appellant who Choudry Zeb had later met with in town.
23. Choudry Zeb testified that he had met the appellant on several occasions during the course of the conspiracy but he was unable to explain why he had not mentioned this fact in his police interviews. He maintained that the day after his wife's arrest, he met the appellant, Imran Shah and Arfan Shah in the car park at Forster Square in Bradford city centre in order to discuss these events. Imran Shah had indicated that he would get rid of any paperwork and Arfan Shah revealed that he had given a bin-liner full of documents relating to these transactions to a friend for disposal.
24. Choudry Zeb then contacted the police. He said that a few days later, he met Imran Shah to find out about certain other loans to which the police had referred and with which, as he maintained, he had not been involved.
25. Choudry Zeb accepted that he had told lies in his defence case statement and in his police interviews, and he maintained that he had refused to answer some of the questions put to him on the advice of his solicitor. He agreed that at no point during any of his ten police interviews did he suggest that the appellant was aware of the conspiracy to defraud the National Westminster bank. He denied that he had made these allegations in the hope of a reduction in sentence. Instead, he testified that he had told the police that the appellant was not involved with the fraud because the latter had specifically requested not to be implicated. He accepted that he had been happy to name others, albeit he claimed James Clegg had not been part of the fraud. He gave evidence that the appellant had requested a business plan for three of the loans despite being reminded of uncontested banking evidence to the contrary. He agreed that the appellant had not threatened him or taken other steps to stop him from giving evidence. He could not remember the telephone call that he received from the appellant on 4 February 2011 but maintained that it would have been in connection with the loans.
26. He said that he did not meet the appellant until 2009, and he understood the appellant and Imran Shah to be friends. He was under the impression that the appellant was aware of James Clegg's National Westminster bank computer login details and password. This was because Imran Shah had told him that James Clegg was unaware of what was happening, and in those circumstances it must have been the appellant who processed the loans.
27. Choudry Zeb accepted that he had 20 previous convictions, including a conviction in 1999 for an offence of conspiracy to defraud involving the cashing of forged cheques and the manufacturing of false identification documents.
28. The prosecution relied upon the links between the appellant and his co-accused, which included a number of telephone calls that had been made during the conspiracy, along with the appellant's link with Imran Shah who had been employed at the National Westminster Bank (they started work at the bank on the same day).
29. As to the telephone evidence, the prosecution established that 47 text messages were sent from James Clegg's work mobile telephone to the 'Dean Martin' number. On 13 October 2010, a text message was sent from James Clegg's telephone to one of Choudry Zeb's telephones. Between July 2010 and February 2011, 188 text messages were sent, and 28 calls were made, from James Clegg's work telephone to a number ending in 2359 (which the prosecution credibly attributed to Imran Shah). James Clegg also had a personal Blackberry number from which he had contacted the appellant both on his work and his personal telephone numbers.
30. The appellant's work telephone had been used on four particular occasions:

(1) In February 2011, a text message had been sent, and a telephone call had been made, to another telephone number attributed to Imran Shah (ending in 5128);

(2) In January 2011 a text message had been sent, and in February 2011 a telephone call, had been made to the telephone number attributed to Imran Shah (ending in 2359);

(3) Text messages and calls had been made to a number ending in 8879 (which the prosecution attributed to Arfan Shah and for which the name "Immy" appeared in the list of contacts);

(4) On 4th February 2011, a call was made to a telephone number attributed to Choudry Zeb (ending in 0061).

31. One of the telephones attributed to Arfan Shah had both the appellant's personal telephone number and another number attributed to Choudry Zeb (ending in 7554) in the list of contacts. The appellant's number was stored under the name "Angi Nat" in Arfan Shah's mobile telephone.
32. A number of witnesses gave evidence that their identities had been stolen. Additional evidence touching upon the other defendants was also introduced, which it is not necessary to summarise that evidence for the purposes of this appeal.
33. The appellant denied any wrongdoing. He said he had not been a party to any conspiracy and he suggested that the case mounted against him was a mistake. Save for the evidence of Choudry Zeb, which he claimed was wholly unbelievable, he argued there was no evidential basis for inferring that he knew that James Clegg was setting up false loan applications.
34. The appellant did not give evidence. Certain agreed facts were put before the jury in support of his case, which largely set out factual matters that were at odds with aspects of Choudry Zeb's evidence.
35. Arfan Shah gave evidence that he did not know the appellant and had never met him. He said the only reason the appellant's mobile telephone number was stored in his telephone under the name "Angi" was because a friend had given him the appellant's business card with the number on it. He said that he knew a man called Shakil Khan, having been introduced to him through a friend in 2006. Shakil Khan became a business associate and took a tenancy of one of his properties He denied ever using the name Shakil Khan.
36. Imran Shah gave evidence that between 2000 and 2004 he and the appellant were work colleagues. Apart from one chance meeting in 2008, he had not seen the appellant since leaving the Bank in 2004, although they had sent each other the occasional text message up until 2011. He agreed that he had been been childhood friends with Choudry Zeb, but said that he had not had any contact with him since 2008.
37. He denied any involvement in any of the fraudulent loans. He accepted it was possible that his fingerprints were on some of the paperwork and he suggested that when he had visited Choudry Zeb he often needed to move papers in order to sit down. He disputed introducing Choudry Zeb to the appellant. He said that Arfan Shah did not know the appellant and was unable to say why Arfan had the appellant's number stored in his telephone under the name "Angi Nat." He denied that the "Immy" in the contacts list of that telephone referred to him or that he used the number ending in '8879'.
38. Grace Stefanidis gave evidence that she had been threatened by Choudry Zeb and had only acted under duress. She said that his evidence that she had been a willing participant in the fraud was untrue. She was acquitted by the jury.
39. Alex Braybrook contradicted Choudry Zeb in a number of respects as to the events surrounding the withdrawal of money from the loan account opened in his name.

The Appeal against Conviction

40. This appeal was advanced before the single judge on a number of grounds which, save in one respect, we need not rehearse because leave was granted on the single issue of whether the judge failed adequately, or indeed at all, to place the applicant's case before the jury. The appeal was argued before this court on this sole basis.
41. It is to be noted that the delivery of the summing up was notable in that it extended over six days, and it was punctuated by some unusually lengthy adjournments. It commenced on Thursday 16 April 2015. The case was then adjourned to Tuesday 21 April, when the summing continued, as it did on Wednesday 22 April 2015, Thursday 23 April 2015, and Monday 27 April 2015 (when the jury went into retirement). The jury's deliberations extended over Tuesday 28 April 2015, Wednesday 29 April 2015, Thursday 30 April 2015, Friday 1 May 2015, Tuesday 5 May 2015 and Wednesday 6 May 2015 (when verdicts were delivered).
42. At the outset of the summing up, the judge observed:

The Defendants James Clegg and Anzar Hussain, Business Managers at the Natwest Bank, deny that they have abused such a trust (viz. that as servants of the bank they abused their position and acted for their own gain). They claim that the case brought against them is a grave mistake that is based on shaky foundations. They have done nothing wrong, they have been part of no conspiracy to defraud but have conducted their business affairs as every member of the public would expect them to do. […] In a nutshell that is what this case is about.

And a little later:

What I would like to do now, ladies and gentlemen, is to summarise, and summarise I emphasise, what it is the Crown say that the Defendants in the dock did and which is evidence of their guilt on the count that a particular Defendant faces. The Prosecution say that Anzar Hussain sanctioned the 14 account applications. That he declared the process undertaken by James Clegg in each case was in accordance with what was required by the bank. As I understand it with this Anzar Hussain agrees. But the prosecution invites you to infer from this that Anzar Hussain must therefore have had knowledge of what James Clegg was doing in respect of loan accounts and must have been a party to it. With that of course the defence do not agree. There seems you may think no evidential basis for drawing that inference because there is no evidence upon which it can be said that Anzar Hussain had any knowledge of the process of applying for the accounts still less the process of applying for the loans. No evidence that he knew whether or not such applications were genuine or not. No basis for concluding that Anzar Hussain knew whether or not James Clegg had ever met any of the applicants. There is no evidence on the documents, ladies and gentlemen, that Anzar Hussain knew even that a loan application had been made at all, all that can be said is that Anzar Hussain had approved the procedure undertaken by James Clegg in opening the account. That is you may think a tick box exercise which frankly has little bearing on this case.

The Defence say there is no evidence to support the Crown's case in closing that Anzar Hussain was directing James Clegg and wishing to leave no trail which could lead back to him. He left Clegg not only to facilitate the loans but then to follow their progress on the computer leaving behind what might be called Clegg's computer footprint, but where no such footprints would lead to Anzar Hussain himself.

Anzar Hussain says that this is nonsense. In fact, it is worse than nonsense because it is based say the Defence on speculation and not evidence. The evidence demonstrates only that Anzar Hussain sanctioned the opening of bank accounts. That means he examined whether Clegg had obtained the documents necessary to open an account and when he was satisfied that that had been done by looking at table A and B and tick marks inserted on documents he had no more to do with those accounts. What he did was in accordance with his job and no more than he was doing in accordance with his job throughout his time as a Business Banking Manager.

Anzar Hussain says that the Prosecution in a desperate attempt to create a case against him have placed their trust in a witness unworthy of any trust at all, namely the admitted criminal, liar and fraudster Choudhry Zeb. The Defence say there was no need for Anzar Hussain to give evidence in answer to the Crown's case because the Crown has no case save and except for the wholly unbelievable evidence of Choudhry Zeb, a man whose evidence the Defence say should reject in its entirety.

43. After the judge had provided this thumbnail sketch, Mr Kane (who appeared for Hussain at trial and on this appeal) in the context of suggesting the judge should amplify his direction in law on the failure of the appellant and others to give evidence, observed:

[…] I anticipate your Honour is going to be dealing with the Defence of each Defendant, Defendant by Defendant […]

44. Although the judge corrected and added to his directions in law to the jury in accordance with Mr Kane's submission, he did not address, or follow, the suggestion that there may be a later 'defendant-by-defendant' section of the summing up.
45. On 22 April 2015, the judge reminded the jury that the appellant was not, on the basis of the documents, involved in the creation of the customer profiles.
46. The judge rehearsed for the jury, in some considerable detail, the cross examination of Choudry Zeb by Mr Kane (the judge's summary extends over 15 pages of the transcript of the summing up). Furthermore, the judge gave the jury a précis of the significant parts of the appellant's interviews with the police following his arrest. This included his employment history; his account as to the use of his mobile telephone number, ending 3837; and the process that needed to be followed for deciding whether to offer a loan to a new account holder. He provided, as was emphasised by the judge, a significant explanation as to the processes involved in opening a new account and the time this took. It was stressed and repeated by the judge that the employee who sanctioned the account did no more than confirm the existence of the relevant paperwork and the documentation for the purposes of identification. The judge reminded the jury of the appellant's account not only as to these general process and procedures, but his suggested lack of involvement in each of the individual 11 loans. In essence, the appellant indicated in interview that he had little, if any, memory of the individual transactions and could only say that his role was to check the documents rather than to evaluate the integrity of the new customers and whether the bank should trust them. For each of the relevant loans, he merely sanctioned the documents that led to the opening of the accounts. The judge reminded the jury of the appellant's answers when he was questioned about some of those who were said to be involved in this case: for instance, he had met the Shah brothers but he did not know anyone called Choudhry Zeb or Rebecca Zeb.
47. It is argued by Mr Kane that the judge was obliged to set out as part of the summing up the following arguments for the appellant, namely that:

i) The evidence of Choudry Zeb was inconsistent with the rest of the Crown's evidence as to the involvement of the appellant;

ii) The appellant did not open the bank accounts, authorise the loans or authorise the withdrawals of cash, or make a significant number of relevant telephone calls at the time these events occurred (in contrast with James Clegg);

iii) It was James Clegg, as opposed to the appellant, who claimed that he had met the applicants in the bank;

iv) The application for a loan had not been made at the time the appellant sanctioned the documents;

v) There was no evidence to link the appellant with the loan enquiries;

vi) Save for Choudry Zeb, there was no evidence the appellant had received any payment for these loans;

vii) The appellant had no telephone contact with Shah during the relevant period covered by the indictment; and

viii) The appellant was not linked to the documents in the bin liner.

48. Additionally, it is suggested the judge should have addressed those parts of prosecuting counsel's speech with which the appellant took issue (viz. a suggestion that Clegg would not have been involved without the appellant; a comment by prosecuting counsel on absent telephone records; speculation as to who gave Choudry Zeb a cheque for £23,000; and a doubt that was expressed whether a document was written by Clegg).
49. The final criticism of the judge in this context is that he failed to remind the jury of the contents of the written admissions that had been introduced on behalf of the appellant, although the judge directed the jury that they were to be treated as evidence in the case, and that there was no difference between admissions presented at different stages in the proceedings.
50. The authorities are clear on the extent of the judge's obligations when a defendant has not given evidence. In R v Hillier & Farrar (1993) 97 Cr App R 349 the defendant in question did not give evidence and the correct approach to be followed by the judge was identified as follows:

What the jury needed to be reminded of in his defence was relevant matter contained in his pre-trial statements and interviews with the police—copies of those documents were in their hands—and possibly such assistance, if any, as counsel had been able to extract from the Crown's witnesses in cross-examination.

[…]

We must make this clear yet again, namely that it is no part of a judge's duty to build up a defence for someone who has not chosen to give the jury the benefit of his version of material circumstances and events. The judge's obligation is limited to reminding the jury, in summary form, of what the defendant is said to have stated as to those matters at some time or another pre-trial and what assistance, if any, the Crown's witnesses have provided.

51. In this regard we have considered the judgments of this court in R v Singh-Mann [2014] EWCA Crim 717 and R v Lunkulu [2015] EWCA Crim 1350. In Singh-Mann the court noted:

91. The timing and the form of this summary (of the main arguments relied on by the defendant) will depend on the circumstances of the case – most particularly, whether the relevant evidence needs to be gathered together in one section of the summing up or whether it is preferable to refer to it incrementally as the judge summarises the evidence in the case as a whole – but in either case the judge ought to explain the key submissions of the accused in support of his defence at a convenient juncture during the summing up.

52. In our judgment, the judge more than adequately ensured that the jury understood the case for the appellant, and he summarised the main points relied on by Mr Kane in ample detail. There could have been no doubt that Choudry Zeb's evidence was strongly disputed and was characterised as being wholly unreliable, not least because it was contradicted by other material in the case. The judge stressed the potential lack of importance of the procedures involved in opening an account and applying for a loan, and the need for caution in this regard given the appellant's case on this issue. The relative lack of telephone evidence against the appellant was clearly before the jury, as set out above. The judge highlighted that the appellant's contention was that the allegation against him rested solely on the evidence of Choudry Zeb, who it was argued was a dishonest witness. The judge summarised the appellant's case very clearly at the outset of the summing up, and thereafter dealt in considerable detail with the criticisms that were made of Zeb's evidence, and the account the appellant provided in interview. There was no need for the judge to make every point advanced by Mr Kane in his closing speech, or otherwise highlight all of the arguments that had emerged on his behalf during the trial.
53. Therefore, the jury were provided simply and clearly, and in summary form, with an explanation of the appellant's case, and it was up to the judge to decide when during the summing up it was most appropriate to provide a precis of the main contentions. In particular, he was not obliged to repeat all of the relevant points at the conclusion of the summing up. Standing back and considering the summing up as a whole, it is clear the judge ensured the jury would have been in no doubt as to the core elements of the appellant's case.
54. In the result, we dismiss this appeal