“There is a vexed point which the counsel for the defence has touched upon,” said the learned judge, “upon which I hope I shall be excused if I say a few words before approaching the case which occupies your painful attention. In Crown cases it happens frequently that the prisoner is at a serious disadvantage in the matter of representation. Counsel of great eminence may be briefed for the prosecution, while the defence, for whose conduct, as a general rule, very little money is forthcoming, has not the means to secure the aid of counsel of tried worth and experience. In theory the judge is assumed to hold a kind of watching brief for the accused, inasmuch that it is his duty to be alive to any loophole of escape that may present itself in the course of the evidence, and represent that loophole to the jury. But my experience has shown to me that that loophole is extremely unlikely to appear where the opposing counsel are unequally matched. In theory it is expected of the counsel for the Crown that he shall keep a perfectly open mind and not allow his own position to sway his conduct of the case; but a long experience has imposed the conclusion upon me that such an impartiality as this is not practicable for an advocate who, in the exercise of his art, is compelled by the fact that he holds a brief to exert his talent, in spite of an unwritten law, and even in spite of himself, to the fullest capacity on behalf of his client. “These words, gentlemen, will not be misconstrued, I am sure. Nothing is farther from my intention than to suggest that Crown advocates wantonly overstep their duty or go outside their jurisdiction. But I do suggest that they feel impelled to do their utmost for their client, and that client is the Treasury. And having that very proper and natural feeling in their minds it is humanly impossible for them to approach their task of promoting a conviction in the academic spirit which in theory is imposed upon them. Therefore you will conceive how difficult becomes the function of a judge who is called upon in the prisoner’s interest to hold the scales and to adjust the balance, when there is, as occurs so frequently, a grave disparity between the ability and the professional experience of the contending counsel. The judge himself, gentlemen, is only human, and although his familiarity with the procedure of a criminal trial may render him less vulnerable to the art of a skilful advocate than those who are not so familiar with those forms of procedure, at the same time I feel entitled to assert that every judge must in a measure be susceptible to the manner in which evidence is conveyed to his notice, and the manner in which it is dissected before his eyes.