Reynolds v Ipswich Crown Court

When deciding whether to adjourn a criminal appeal, the court must consider the interests of the appellant, witnesses and the public. A refusal may be unlawful where there is insufficient basis for concluding that the appellant lacks a proper intention to pursue the appeal, or where inadequate weight is given to reliable medical evidence and the prejudice caused by the appellant’s unavoidable absence. At the permission stage, it is sufficient that such grounds are properly arguable.

The claimant sought renewed permission for judicial review of the refusal by the Ipswich Crown Court to adjourn his appeal against a conviction under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The appeal was heard and dismissed in his absence while he remained in New Zealand and relied on medical evidence that he was unfit to travel. The central issue was whether the refusal to adjourn arguably denied him a fair opportunity to present his case.

1. The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was granted. The court considered it arguable that the Crown Court had insufficient basis for finding that the claimant had no proper intention to prosecute his appeal.

2. In exercising the adjournment discretion, the Crown Court was entitled to consider the interests of the appellant, the witnesses and the public generally. The court referred to the approach identified by Judge LJ in R v Chaaban [2003] EWCA Crim 1012.

3. It was also arguable that the Crown Court had approached the medical evidence incorrectly, particularly the report dated 5 May 2004, and had given insufficient weight to the prejudice that would result from the claimant’s absence during the appeal. The authorities relied upon by the claimant, including R v Hereford Magistrates' Court ex p Rowlands [1998] QB 110 and R v Birmingham City Magistrates' Court ex p Booth [1999] EWHC Admin 425, made those grounds properly arguable.

4. The decision of HHJ Holt dated 10 May 2004 was quashed. The question was remitted to the Ipswich Crown Court for reconsideration, with the claimant awarded his costs, subject to assessment if not agreed.

• Ipswich Crown Court: refused to adjourn the claimant’s appeal and heard it in his absence, upholding the conviction.
• High Court (Administrative Court): granted permission for judicial review, quashed the Crown Court’s decision and remitted the question to that court.