Jury in Chris Cairns case warned by judge over Lou Vincent evidence

Jurors in the perjury trial of former New Zealand cricket captain Chris Cairns have been warned by the judge to be careful when considering the evidence of admitted fixer Lou Vincent.

Cairns, 45, and his co-defendant and barrister Andrew Fitch-Holland face perjury and perverting the course of justice allegations after the all-rounder successfully sued Indian Premier League chairman Lalit Modi for accusing him of match fixing on Twitter in 2010.

The libel case netted him £90,000, but Cairns is alleged to have lied to the court when he said he had "never, ever" engaged in match fixing.

The jury at London's Southwark Crown Court has heard evidence from a host of cricketers including Vincent, Daniel Vettori, Brendon McCullum, Andre Adams, Chris Harris and Ricky Ponting.

Several players accused Cairns of playing an active role including Vincent, who admitted he was involved in the fixing scandal under "direct orders" from his captain.

Mr Justice Sweeney, summing up, said he wanted to give specific warnings about Vincent, as he told the jury: "His case, you should be particularly cautious that he might have his own interest to serve."

This was against the background that Vincent had admittedly been involved in match and/or spot fixing, and thereby admitted offences in this country and elsewhere.

"The prosecution say that nevertheless you can be sure he is telling the truth when he tells us that Mr Cairns recruited him to take part in cheating," said the judge.

"The defence say that Lou Vincent plainly has an interest of his own to serve, namely making allegations about a big name in the game in the hope of getting away with what he has done, or minimising its consequences, and that he has succeeded in doing so, as while he has received life bans from playing cricket, he had already given up cricket, and he has not been investigated or prosecuted for the undoubted crimes he has committed in this country and elsewhere."

The judge added: "It is incumbent on me to emphasise to you the potential danger posed by such a witness and point out to you that he might have his own interests to serve by giving evidence.

"What you make of his evidence is entirely a matter for you, whether you are sure that he's telling the truth or not."

The judge said that if the jury became sure that Cairns had cheated, it would be open for them to convict him on count one, perjury.

They could then go on to consider count two, against both defendants, perverting the course of justice.

But if they acquitted on count one, they must acquit on count two as well.

The judge will continue his summing up on Monday at 10am.