Chowdhury, R. v

When sentencing for deliberate failure to surrender to bail, the court must assess why the defendant absconded and whether the conduct was intended to disrupt the justice system for personal advantage. Exceptional aggravating features may justify a sentence above the guideline range.

The seriousness of the underlying allegation does not itself determine the seriousness of the bail offence. Its nature may, however, affect the harm caused by the failure to surrender. A later acquittal does not reduce the seriousness of a failure which has prevented a fair trial.

The appellant had been granted bail on charges of harassment and threats to kill his wife. He failed to attend his trial and remained at large for almost 13 years. When proceedings resumed, the complainant's health prevented her from giving coherent evidence. The prosecution offered no evidence on the original charges, which were dismissed.

At Portsmouth Crown Court, the judge found that the appellant had failed to surrender to bail without reasonable excuse and imposed 12 months' imprisonment. The appellant appealed as of right, contending that the maximum sentence was manifestly excessive and that the judge's ineffective direction concerning remand time showed that a lower sentence should have been imposed.

1. Appeal dismissed. The 12-month sentence for failing to surrender to bail was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court held that this was an extreme case. The appellant deliberately evaded the court's jurisdiction for almost 13 years. His conduct disrupted the administration of justice and successfully prevented a fair trial on serious allegations of matrimonial violence. Those were powerful aggravating features.

3. The sentencing guidance required consideration of the reason for the failure to appear. A deliberate failure designed to disrupt the system for the defendant's advantage was highly culpable. Although the guidance gave a range ending at 40 weeks' custody, it expressly allowed a sentence outside that range where aggravation justified it.

4. The court rejected the submission based on R v Clark [2000] 1 Cr App R(S) 224. That authority established that a later acquittal did not entitle an absconding defendant to credit or a reduced sentence. It did not support the converse proposition that deliberately avoiding a strong case could not aggravate the bail offence. The judge's purported direction that remand time should not count was legally ineffective following repeal of section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but it did not establish that the sentence imposed was excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal dismissed in [2013] EWCA Crim 943.
• Crown Court at Portsmouth: On 6 December 2012, the judge found that the appellant had failed to surrender to bail without reasonable excuse and sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment.