Define: Judicial Directions

Judicial directions refer to instructions given by a judge to a jury or a bench trial about the law applicable to the case. These directions guide the jury or judge in understanding the legal principles relevant to the case and how they should apply them in reaching a verdict or decision. Judicial directions clarify legal concepts, define legal standards, and outline the elements that must be proven to establish liability or guilt. They also highlight any legal requirements or procedures that must be followed during the trial process. Judicial directions are crucial for ensuring that legal proceedings are fair, impartial, and conducted in accordance with the law. They help to uphold the principles of justice and ensure that verdicts or decisions are based on a clear understanding of the applicable legal principles.

This overview summarises some of the common circumstances in which the judge is expected to give particular directions to witnesses or the jury; failure to give such directions may amount to grounds for an appeal.

• Acaster Warning: a witness who is not compellable should be warned before taking the oath that he or she is not required to testify
• Direction as to defendant’s silence: if the defendant relies on facts at trial that was not revealed when he was originally questioned, the judge should guide the jury on the extent to which they may draw adverse inferences (e.g., RVNickolson1998). If the defendant does not testify at all, then the judge should give a suitably-modified variant of the JSB Direction Where Accused Does Not Testify (R V CowanEtc1996).
• Lucas Direction: Where the prosecution has alleged that the defendant has told lies, and that it may be inferred from this that the defendant is more likely to be guilty, the judge should warn the jury that there might be innocent explanations for the defendant’s untruthfulness
• Turnbull Direction: where the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator is at issue, the judge should warn the jury of the problems associated with identification evidence
• V ye Direction: if the defendant has raised evidence of his good character, and he is (legally speaking) of good character, the judge should direct the jury that it is appropriate to take this good character into account when assessing his truthfulness and propensity to commit the offence. The direction need not be given if to do so would be an affront to common sense (R v Aziz (1995))

This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 29th March, 2024.