VAN LARE J.S.C.
The learned trial judge in his summing-up summarised the case for the prosecution, then proceeded to refer to the defence of the appellants as if the respective defences of both were one and the same or identical; he further made no effort to point out to the jury the considerations to bear in mind in deciding whether or not to believe one side or the other, and apparently gave them but little assistance towards having a critical approach in respect of the material or relevant issues in the case. It is true the facts are simple and in no way complicated, but trial judges usually endeavour in most cases to direct the jury’s attention to the salient features of the evidence for and against the accused. After a summary of the bare facts in this case the judge went on:
“This is the short history of the case put before you for your consideration. It is a question of fact for you to decide as to the case made by the defence and that for the prosecution from which you are aske…