The principles applied
 For several reasons, I would reject this ground of appeal.
 First, it is at least debatable whether what the trial judge
said about Rin Ken’s evidence in fact misstated what she had
said. There is also some force in the respondent’s submission that
the failure to juxtapose this evidence with the objective reality afforded by the video surveillance that the appellant was the pursuer enured to the appellant’s benefit.
 Second, trial counsel brushed aside this evidence in his
closing address. It seems offered now in support of a theory that
someone else may have been the person responsible for the deceased’s death. But the position advanced at trial was not
a denial of authorship, but rather a submission of a lesser level of
 Third, assuming this reference was a misstatement of Rin
Ken’s evidence, it was not about a very important piece of evidence relating to the determinative issue in the case or the defence advanced.
 Fourth, although not fatal to a successful claim of error,
trial counsel did not object to this aspect of the charge.
 Finally, the complaint is of a misstatement of an item of
evidence adduced at trial. This is one of the very reminders that
the trial judge provided to the jury about his references to the evidence. There is no reason to think that the jury would have ignored his direction in connection with this item of evidence.
 For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal.