Taffs v Chelmsford Crown Court

A criminal appeal should not proceed in the appellant’s absence where an adjournment is supported, at least to some degree, by medical evidence indicating an objective health problem affecting attendance and the appellant’s legal representative cannot properly act without instructions. The court must balance the need to prevent unjustified delay against the defendant’s right to participate, and should have regard to the Criminal Procedure Rules. Generalised medical reports may properly attract scepticism, particularly on a further adjournment application, but that concern does not by itself justify proceeding without considering the controverted issues. A decision reached without properly addressing those matters may be quashed.

The applicant had been convicted by a magistrates’ court of failing to notify the authorities of a change in circumstances affecting her housing benefit and council tax benefit. She appealed to the Crown Court. On the listed hearing date she sought an adjournment supported by two letters from general practitioners. The Crown Court questioned the quality of the medical evidence, proceeded after the applicant’s solicitor withdrew, treated the appeal as conceded without hearing the evidence, and made a substantial costs order.

The applicant sought judicial review of that decision. The central issue was whether the Crown Court had been entitled to proceed with the appeal in her absence in those circumstances.

1. Application allowed. The Crown Court’s decision and order for costs were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Crown Court for hearing.
2. The Crown Court was entitled to seek further information. The first medical letter was weak because it recorded the patient’s own view rather than an independent medical assessment. The second letter was also generalised and unsatisfactory, but it stated on its face that an objective health problem affected the applicant’s capacity to attend.
3. The court had to balance the defendant’s position as a necessary witness and participant against the important need to prevent time being wasted by unjustified adjournments. In doing so, it should have considered the Criminal Procedure Rules.
4. The appeal was nevertheless commenced without properly considering the controverted fact and without adequately addressing the applicant’s inability to give her solicitor further instructions. The appeal was then treated as conceded without hearing the evidence. In those circumstances, the decision could not stand.
5. The court emphasised that adjournments are not readily granted and that generalised medical reports may be met with scepticism. Any further application by the applicant would therefore face profound scepticism and was unlikely to succeed.
6. The applicant’s additional claim for her own costs of the judicial review application was refused. The court considered that her conduct at the Crown Court and the obtaining of a generalised medical report had substantially brought about the need for the application.

• Magistrates’ Court: convicted the applicant on 8 June 2010.
• Chelmsford Crown Court: proceeded with the applicant’s appeal in her absence, treated it as conceded, and made a costs order exceeding £1,000.
• High Court (Administrative Court): quashed the Crown Court’s decision and costs order and remitted the appeal for rehearing.