The Privy Council handed down judgment in the case of Michel v the Queen [2009] UKPC 41 on 4th November 2009. The appellant sought to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of Jersey dismissing his appeal against conviction of money laundering under article 32 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.

The appellant’s trial at first instance was heard before the Inferior Number of the Royal Court of Jersey, and the Commissioner of said Court had repeatedly intervened and posed multiple questions throughout the trial. The issue therefore was whether the appellant had received a fair in the light of these interventions, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence against him.

The Privy Council considered the case law on judicial interventions, such as Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55 and R v Randall [2002] 2 Crim App R 267. Allowing the appeal, the Privy Council stated it was the duty of judges to act impartially and ensure they “umpired the contest” rather than acting as a prosecutor. In criminal cases in particular, judges were under a duty to defendants had an impartial judge to ensure they received a fair trial.