R v Muhammad Hanif Arshad
[2024] EWCA Crim 67
R v Geraint Alun Baldwin
25 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1475
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of a serious assault even though he didn't show up to his trial. The court said he chose not to be there because he ignored his lawyers and didn't go to court, even when he knew the date. They said the trial was fair, even without him there, so his conviction stands.
Key Facts
- •Geraint Alun Baldwin was convicted in absentia of causing grievous bodily harm with intent (s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861).
- •The incident involved an assault on Mr. George outside a pub, captured on CCTV.
- •Baldwin's defence was self-defence.
- •Baldwin failed to communicate with his solicitors for six months leading up to the trial.
- •The trial proceeded despite Baldwin's absence and lack of representation.
- •Baldwin was arrested after the jury returned a guilty verdict.
Legal Principles
A defendant has a right to be present at their trial and to legal representation, but these rights can be waived.
R v Hayward [2001] EWCA Crim 168, paragraph 22; R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5
The utmost care is necessary when deciding whether to proceed with a trial in the absence of the accused; such a course should rarely be adopted.
R v Lopez [2013] EWCA Crim 1744
A trial must not proceed if the defendant is absent unless the court is satisfied the defendant waived their right to attend and the trial will be fair despite their absence.
Criminal Procedure Rules 25.2(b)
Factors to consider when deciding whether to proceed with a trial in the defendant's absence include the defendant's behavior, possibility of adjournment, the length of any adjournment, defendant's representation, the disadvantage to the defendant, risk of jury reaching improper conclusion, seriousness of the offence, and public interest.
R v Hayward [2001] EWCA Crim 168, paragraph 22(5)
In a trial in the absence of an unrepresented defendant, the judge must ensure the trial is as fair as possible, expose weaknesses in the prosecution case, make points for the defence as evidence permits, and warn the jury that absence is not an admission of guilt.
R v Hayward [2001] EWCA Crim 168, paragraph 22(6)
It is not possible to re-open evidence generally or permit further speeches after the summing-up, though there is no absolute rule against giving further evidence to the jury.
R v Dunster [2021] EWCA Crim 1555
Outcomes
Applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction were refused.
The judge's decision to proceed with the trial in the applicant's absence was within the bounds of his discretion. The applicant's actions constituted a waiver of his right to attend and be represented. The trial was deemed fair despite his absence.