THE Court of Criminal Appeal IN 1953 freed convicted robbers Samaroo and Ezraz on the ground that the trial judge’s summing-up to the jury was defective.
Samaroo & Ezaz who had faced a jury trial for robbery with aggravation had led an alibi defence but was convicted by the jury.

They appealed the convictions and sentences.

The Appellate Court quashed the convictions and sentences after concluding that the trial judge did not adequately put the Case to the jury.

Chief Justice Bell the president of the Court with Justices F.M Boland and J.L. Wills, had concluded, ‘It is of paramount importance that the Judge in his summing up must fairly put an accused’s defence to the jury and as that had not been done in an otherwise careful and meticulous summing-up the convictions and sentence must be quashed.  The Appeals were allowed

Senior Counsel Mr. B.O. Adams appeared for the appellants while Solicitor General G.M. Farnum, represented the respondent.

At the conclusion of the arguments, the judgment of the court was delivered by Chief Justice Bell of the Supreme Court of Criminal Appeal.

According to the Chief Justice, “These appeals, which were heard together are appeals against convictions and sentences. The appellants had appeared before the judge and a jury on charges of robbery with aggravation. Learned counsel other appellants argued a number of points.  He abandoned two of the points recorded in the grounds of an application for leave to appeal.

“We are against him on two other points, namely, that there was no proof of what the grounds of appeal call ownership, and that the possession of the stolen goods, the money, was not fully established.  We are against the (1909) 3 C.A.R.

“But while it is settled law that the summing-up must fairly put the case for the defence, there is no need for the judge to go into every detail of the case, nor is there any need for him to put the defence in technical language.  For instance, if the defence is an alibi, there is no need for the judge to put the defence to the jury under that name, or to use any technical name for the defence offered.  There is no need, as we understand the law, that the Judge should put the defence at any particular stage of his summing-up.

“ He can deal with it as he deals with the witnesses for the prosecution, but there are obvious advantages of emphasis and orderly arrangement that the judge should put the defence story to the jury after he has finished with the story for the prosecution, and that is the mode that we would certainly recommend.

“It is also quite clear that it is sufficient if the defence is put substantially, that is to say, if it emerges from an examination of the summing up as a whole that the issues in the case were, in substance, put to the jury by the Judge.

“Now as regards this particular case, we have come to the conclusion that in an otherwise meticulous and careful summing-up by the learned trial Judge , who is careful and meticulous, it cannot fairly and reasonably be said that the defence of either of the appellants was put to the jury clearly or in such a way that their attention was sufficiently and emphatically drawn to the nature of that defence,

“It cannot be enough, we feel, merely to assume that because the jury has heard both sides of the case they are cognisant of the defence which is put forward. Something more than that is necessary. Something must be done to emphasise to the jury the defence which an accused person is offering.

“Now, unquestionably, throughout the learned trial Judge’s summing-up he did make reference to statements which had been made by the two appellants but we are of the opinion that he did so for purposes other than the purpose of putting the defence to the jury in the way we feel it ought to be put. It would not be enough, we feel, to say: Well when these statements were being dealt with by the learned trial Judge it must have been apparent to the jury that the statements raised the defence of an alibi in each case.

“Something considerably more than that was required in our view, so we are left in the result with the view that at no stage can it be said that the defence, as put forward by the appellants was sufficiently clearly and emphatically put to the jury and we are forced to the conclusion that that very vital principle has been infringed.

“It must be, we feel, the duty of this Court to ensure that Judges trying cases with juries do not overlook that important principle.

“We would reiterate that it is the function of the Court to make sure that a judge sitting with a jury never loses sight of the fact that at some stage of his summing-up and in some language and method he must alert the jury to the defence which has been offered to them by the accused. That is a very fundamental duty which we as a Court of Appeal, would fail in if we did not emphasise it,”’ Chief Justice Bell disclosed in the judgment of the Court.

Other judges of the Court F.M. Boland and J. L. Wills concurred with the judgment, allowing the appeals and quashing the convictions and sentences.