R v John Allcock & Anor
[2023] EWCA Crim 1010
Cavan Hanna & Anor v R
4 November 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1315
Court of Appeal
Two brothers were found guilty of serious drug crimes based on secret phone messages. They refused to attend their trial, and the judge continued without them. A higher court agreed with the guilty verdict and the long prison sentences, saying the brothers' actions were a deliberate attempt to delay justice.
Key Facts
- •Jamie Hanna and Cavan Hanna were convicted of conspiracy to supply cocaine and money laundering.
- •They refused to participate in their trial after their legal representatives withdrew.
- •The trial proceeded in their absence.
- •The Crown's case relied heavily on EncroChat communications data.
- •The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences.
- •The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.
Legal Principles
Trial in a defendant's absence
R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5; [2003] 1 AC
Admissibility of EncroChat evidence
A, B, D & C v R [2021] EWCA Crim 128 and Atkinson & Ors v R [2021] EWCA Crim 1447
Adding fresh grounds of appeal
R v James [2018] EWCA Crim 285
Sentencing for drug offences
Sentencing Guidelines
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed
The judge was entitled to proceed with the trial in the appellants' absence because their non-participation was deliberate and voluntary. The appellants’ actions amounted to manipulation of the court process. The strong evidence against them, primarily from EncroChat data, supported the convictions.
Renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction refused
The grounds raised were not arguable. Allegations of negligence against previous legal representatives were unfounded, and the attribution evidence was strong. No expert evidence challenged the admissibility of the EncroChat data.
Applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal on fairness grounds refused
The fairness arguments were new and lacked merit; they should have been raised much earlier. The trial was conducted fairly despite the appellants' absence.
Renewed applications for permission to appeal against sentence refused
The judge’s sentencing decision, even considering the lower drug quantity estimates, was justified given the serious nature of the offences and the appellants' previous convictions.