R v Geraint Alun Baldwin
[2023] EWCA Crim 1475
R v Muhammad Hanif Arshad
23 January 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 67
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of rape and sexual assault but ran away before his trial. The court said it was okay to have the trial without him because he ran away on purpose and had already given a statement to the police. The trial was fair enough even without him there, so the convictions stayed.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against convictions for rape and sexual assault.
- •Appellant (52-year-old man) failed to attend court hearings after being granted bail, eventually fleeing to Pakistan.
- •Trial proceeded in his absence after attempts to locate him failed.
- •Appellant was subsequently arrested and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for rape, with concurrent sentences for sexual assault, plus an additional month for failing to surrender.
- •The complainant was a vulnerable adult with autism and learning difficulties.
- •The appellant was a night care worker at the complainant's accommodation unit.
- •The alleged offenses occurred in March 2019.
- •The appellant provided a 36-page police interview detailing his version of events.
- •The trial judge ruled that the trial could proceed in the appellant's absence.
- •The appeal challenges the trial judge's decision to proceed with the trial in the appellant's absence.
Legal Principles
A defendant has a right to be present at their trial, but this right can be waived.
R v Jones [2002] UKHL 50; R v Hayward and Jones [2001] EWCA Crim 168
A trial can proceed in a defendant's absence if the court is satisfied that the defendant has waived their right to attend and the trial will be fair despite their absence.
Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 25.2(b)
In deciding whether to proceed with a trial in a defendant's absence, fairness to the defence is paramount. The seriousness of the offence is not a relevant factor.
R v Jones [2002] UKHL 50; R v Hayward and Jones [2001] EWCA Crim 168
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge properly exercised her discretion. The appellant's voluntary absence and waiver of his right to attend, the extensive attempts to locate him, the availability of his statement and the fairness of the trial process outweighed the disadvantages of his absence. The court also addressed the specific factors outlined in R v Hayward and Jones.