to rely on their individual and collective recollection of the
evidence, rather than that of the trial judge or counsel. Parts of this
instruction were repeated from time to time during the charge.
 The trial judge referred to Rin Ken’s testimony in his
review of the evidence of various witnesses on the issue of
whether the appellant had caused the death of the deceased.
The judge said:
Rin Ken is the woman holding the orange purse in the video. She was stand-
ing close to the fight site at its commencement. She saw Vandin Svay put
pressure on his right side with his left hand. She was aware that Vandin was
Ms. Ken saw a man wearing a shirt that was white with a checkerboard pull
out a knife that could be folded. This man with the knife chased Vandin from
the fight scene along the hallway. The blade of the knife was about six inches
or 15 centimetres long. In the hallway area, Rin Ken did not see the man with
the knife do any act with it.
The positions of counsel at trial
 Trial counsel for the appellant did not object to the trial
judge’s final instructions about this evidence.
 In his closing address to the jury, trial counsel acknowl-
edged that the jury would likely find that the appellant had
stabbed both victims. He asked the jury to find the appellant not
guilty of second degree murder and attempted murder, but guilty
of manslaughter and aggravated assault. In connection with Rin
Ken’s evidence, counsel said:
I don’t know about Rin Ken and this phantom with the long black hair and
the moustache and the — the white check shirt that didn’t appear in any of
the videos. I don’t know what she was talking about.
The arguments on appeal
 In this court, the appellant says that the trial judge told
the jury that the man Rin Ken saw chasing the deceased with
the knife was the man who chased him along the hallway. But
the jury knew from the video that it was the appellant who
chased the deceased along the hallway. Ken swore that the video
did not depict the man she had seen with the knife. This misstatement of Ken’s evidence, the appellant says, removed from
the jury’s consideration that a co-accused, Chea, or a third party
had a knife during the fight and was responsible for the
stabbings. This caused the appellant significant prejudice and
warrants a new trial.
 The respondent says that the trial judge accurately
described the testimony of Rin Ken. What the trial judge did not
do was to point out that the witness’ testimony on this issue was