The plaintiff's personal injury action was settled before trial, and the trial proceeded solely to determine liability between the two defendants following a motor vehicle accident.
During the jury trial, the trial judge repeatedly intervened during the cross-examination and re-examination of the investigating police officer, expressing strong opinions that the officer had failed to conduct a thorough investigation.
The trial judge reiterated these criticisms in his charge to the jury.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's interventions and expressions of opinion crossed the line, usurped the role of counsel, and created an appearance of unfairness.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.