In this Appeal a judge had made inappropriate interruptions and had clearly "cross-examined" a defendant during a trial, but the CA held that the departure from good practice was not so gross, persistent or irremediable that the trial was unfair.
The defendant's counsel had raised the judge's conduct with him in the absence of the jury, and the judge had clarified matters with the jury and had acknowledged that his language had perhaps been inappropriate. Accordingly, the interventions were cured in the eyes of the Court of Appeal.
In such cases it is important to remember that for any conduct to be in "issue" it must be before the Jury and it must go past legitimate comment, for example where a Judge steps into cross examination which is not his or her role. Obviously in this case the Judge recognised that the line might have been crossed and made clear the jury should not misinterpret the situation.