Hayes, R (on the application of) v Chelmsford Crown Court

An appellant’s repeated failure to attend a Crown Court appeal does not, without more, amount to abandonment. The formal abandonment procedure applies whether or not the appellant is on bail and under a duty to attend. Where the appellant is represented, the Crown Court may hear the appeal in the appellant’s absence. It may not dismiss the appeal solely because persistent non-attendance appears deliberately to frustrate the proceedings.

The appellant appealed by way of case stated against the dismissal by HHJ Ball QC and justices of his appeal to the Crown Court against conviction. He had repeatedly failed to attend hearings and had not provided an explanation for his absence. The Crown Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and ordered him to pay costs.

The Administrative Court considered whether repeated unexplained non-attendance by an appellant released on bail, and subject to a condition requiring attendance, permitted the Crown Court to treat the appeal as abandoned without formal notice under rule 11(1) of the Crown Court Rules 1982.

1. Appeal allowed. The decision dismissing the appeal and the associated costs order were quashed. The Chelmsford Crown Court was directed to hear the appeals.
2. Section 79(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 preserves the customary practice and procedure governing Crown Court appeals, including their nature as rehearings. Section 112 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 treats an absent represented party as present. Section 122 of that Act reinforces the relevant position.
3. Rule 11(1) of the Crown Court Rules 1982 provides the formal mechanism for abandonment. Once the period immediately preceding the hearing has begun, abandonment requires the leave of the Crown Court. The court rejected separate abandonment regimes for appellants on bail and appellants who are not under a strict duty to attend.
4. The decisions in R v Croydon, ex parte Clair [1986] 83 Cr App R 202, R v Crown Court at Guildford, ex parte Brewer [1988] 87 Cr App R, and Podmore v Director of Public Prosecutions were followed. They establish that an appeal should not be dismissed peremptorily where the appellant is represented and has not formally abandoned it.
5. Even where an appellant obliged to attend has deliberately absented himself and repeatedly frustrated the proceedings, the appropriate course is to hear the appeal in his absence. The Crown Court cannot dismiss the appeal on the basis that repeated absence constitutes de facto abandonment.

• Chelmsford Crown Court: dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction for want of prosecution and ordered him to pay costs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the case-stated appeal, quashed the dismissal and costs order, and directed the Crown Court to hear the appeals.