25 Against this background, the trial Judge was, in my respectful opinion, right to tell the jury that, if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Stamper had told the truth, it was open to them to convict the appellant. Also, the trial Judge's summary of the defence case, albeit very brief, was accurate. He fairly summarised the appellant's evidence by saying that the gist of it was that nothing had been stolen and that Stamper had not been detained. That evidence had been given on the previous day and must still have been fresh in the minds of the jury. Moreover, while the jury's attention was not drawn to the specifics of what had been said by the appellant in the course of the videotaped interview, their attention was directed to the videotaped evidence generally. Given the evidence of the appellant, and the way in which his defence had been run, there is no basis for the contention that the trial Judge should have gone further and suggested to the jury that it was open to them to find that the offences had been committed, but that neither had involved the appellant. It was enough for the trial Judge to say, as he did, that the appellant denied any knowledge of the commission of the offences, bearing in mind that the jury had already been told that the evidence on each charge should be considered in respect of each of the accused men separately, having regard only for the evidence which was admissible against each on the charge in question. It is significant that, in the atmosphere of the trial, no redirection was sought by counsel for the appellant, other than as regards the theft of the mobile telephone.