Regina v Jones

The House held that, at common law, a Crown Court has a discretion to commence or continue a trial in the absence of the defendant where the defendant has voluntarily absented himself, provided the discretion is exercised with the utmost care and appropriate safeguards are observed. The court applied and endorsed the Court of Appeal's checklist of relevant matters to be weighed when deciding whether to proceed in absence. The House further held that continuation in absence is not, of itself, incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; the ultimate question is whether the proceedings, taken as a whole (including appellate review), were fair. Where the defendant deliberately absconds and consequently is not represented, the judge should be cautious, representation is desirable, the jury should be properly directed, prosecuting counsel and judge must act fairly, and the appellate process provides an important safeguard.

This is an appeal against conviction for conspiracy to rob. The defendant was on bail, knew the trial date, and deliberately absented himself so that the trial at the Crown Court commenced in his absence. The trial proceeded after the judge concluded, following consideration of relevant authorities and the interests of numerous witnesses, that further delay would be unfair; the defendant was convicted and sentenced. The Court of Appeal refused the defendant's appeal and certified a question of general public importance: whether the Crown Court can conduct a trial in the absence, from its commencement, of the defendant.

Nature of the application: an appellate challenge to convictions obtained at a trial conducted in the defendant's absence; relief sought was to quash the conviction and to establish that trials may not properly commence in the defendant's absence.

Issues framed:

• Whether English law permits a trial on indictment to begin in the absence of a defendant who has voluntarily absconded.
• Whether a defendant must unequivocally waive his Article 6 rights before a trial in absence can lawfully proceed.
• Whether the proceedings in the present case complied with Article 6 ECHR (fair trial), having regard to safeguards and the appellate process.

Court's reasoning: The House concluded that English common law recognises a discretion to begin or continue a trial in the absence of a defendant, but that discretion must be exercised with extreme care and only in rare cases. Strasbourg jurisprudence does not categorically forbid trials in absence where the defendant, fully informed, voluntarily absents himself; the decisive inquiry is whether the proceedings as a whole were fair. Some Law Lords considered the defendant had waived rights by conduct; others doubted that an unequivocal waiver had been shown but nonetheless held that fairness was preserved in the particular circumstances because of the judge's careful handling, prosecuting counsel's conduct, specific jury directions, and the availability of full appellate review and legal aid. The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The House held that the Crown Court has a discretion to commence or continue a trial in the absence of the defendant where it is just and fair to do so; that discretion must be exercised with the utmost care and with appropriate safeguards (including, where possible, representation, tailored jury directions, and careful prosecutorial conduct); and that, on the facts of this case, either the defendant had waived his rights or, in any event, the proceedings as a whole satisfied Article 6 so that the conviction was not unsafe.

Trial at Crown Court, Liverpool (trial commenced 6 October 1998; conviction 9 October 1998; sentences imposed). Appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [2001] 3 WLR 125 — appeal dismissed and question certified. Appeal to the House of Lords [2002] UKHL 5 — appeal dismissed.