Tevlin v Medway Magistrates' Court

A magistrates’ court may try an adult defendant in his absence where, despite medical evidence, it is reasonably satisfied that he is deliberately frustrating justice. The discretion must be exercised with utmost care and regard to the defendant’s right to a fair trial, but that right gives a fair opportunity to attend, not an unlimited opportunity to postpone proceedings. The court may assess the medical documentation against the history of repeated adjournments and the circumstances in which the certificates were obtained. Once sufficient material establishes deliberate avoidance, further medical enquiries or postponement may serve no useful purpose.

The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the Medway Magistrates’ Court on 18 June 2010 to proceed with his trial in his absence. He faced a charge under the Public Order Act 1986. The trial had previously been adjourned four times because of his non-attendance, supported by medical certificates. On the fifth trial date he was represented by counsel and produced a hospital discharge note and a general practitioner’s certificate, but the justices concluded that he was deliberately frustrating justice and proceeded to conviction.

The claimant argued that the evidence was insufficient, that the justices should have made further enquiries or adjourned, and that they had wrongly relied on earlier comments by the court’s legal adviser. The central issue was whether the justices were entitled to proceed under section 11 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.

1. Application refused. The Divisional Court held that the justices were entitled to find that the claimant was deliberately seeking to frustrate justice and were justified in proceeding with the trial in his absence.
2. Section 11 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 permits the court to proceed in an adult defendant’s absence unless there is an acceptable reason for non-attendance or proceeding would be contrary to the interests of justice. The discretion must be exercised with care and consistently with the right to a fair trial.
3. Applying the principles in R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1, the existence of medical certificates did not prevent the justices from examining whether the claimant was in reality deliberately frustrating the proceedings. The history of repeated adjournments, the inconvenience to prosecution witnesses, the varying medical explanations, and the circumstances in which the latest certificate was issued provided ample material for the justices to go behind the documentation.
4. The court approved the approach in R v Ealing Magistrates’ Court ex parte Burgess [2001] 165 JPL 82: a defendant is entitled to a fair opportunity to attend trial, but not an unlimited opportunity to postpone it. The assessment remained fact-specific.
5. Once the justices had sufficient evidence to conclude that the claimant was deliberately avoiding justice, there was no useful purpose in further contacting the general practitioner or hospital, delaying the hearing, or issuing a warrant. The proposed further enquiries did not undermine the reasonableness of the decision already reached.
6. The earlier comments of the senior legal adviser were relevant background and did not show that the justices had fettered their discretion. The record demonstrated that they made their own decision on the evidence and submissions before them on 18 June 2010.
7. The claimant was ordered to pay the interested party’s costs, subject to the usual qualifications applicable to a legally aided claimant.

1. Medway Magistrates’ Court: proceeded with the claimant’s trial in his absence on 18 June 2010 and convicted him.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): judicial review application refused; the magistrates’ decision was upheld.