Gaisiance, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service

A criminal appeal may be heard in the appellant’s absence where the court exercises its discretion fairly and reasonably, having regard to the appellant’s failure to attend, the adequacy of any explanation, the interests of other court users and the procedural history. An appellant who chooses to travel before a listed hearing must make adequate arrangements to attend and should contact the court promptly if difficulties arise. A later request to reopen the appeal may properly be refused where the contemporaneous explanation was inadequate and fuller details are supplied only afterwards. The court may also rely on available evidence where the appellant has failed to attend, provided the resulting decision is supported by the evidence.

The claimant was convicted by Westminster Magistrates’ Court of assault by beating. His appeal to the Crown Court was first adjourned so that CCTV material could be provided. The appeal was relisted, but the claimant did not attend at the appointed time. The Crown Court attempted to contact him, then heard the prosecution evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The claimant later sought to reopen the appeal, explaining that he had been delayed while travelling from Birmingham. The Crown Court refused, referring to his inadequate contemporaneous explanation, the attendance of witnesses for a second time and the need to manage court resources. The claimant brought judicial review proceedings challenging both decisions.

1. The claim was dismissed unanimously. The Crown Court had been entitled to proceed with the appeal in the claimant’s absence. The decision was discretionary. The court had attempted to contact him, received no response, and was unaware of the alleged earlier messages to the court or the Crown Prosecution Service.
2. The claimant was responsible for attending at the listed time. His witness statement was vague, and his later explanations did not satisfactorily explain why he had travelled on the morning of the hearing, left insufficient time to reach court and failed to make earlier contact. The fact that the court waited only a short period after attempting contact did not make its decision unlawful.
3. The Crown Court was entitled to take account of the fact that this was the second appeal listing and that witnesses had attended again. A further adjournment would have prejudiced other court users and the efficient administration of justice. The court had also acted fairly by hearing the prosecution evidence, although it was not strictly obliged to do so.
4. The refusal to reopen the appeal was likewise lawful. It was based on the material available on 28 May, including the claimant’s contemporaneous admission that he had no good reasons for failing to attend. He could not rely, after the event, on fuller explanations that had not been given when the reopening request was made.
5. The Crown Court’s decision on the merits was supported by the evidence before it. The CCTV did not materially assist the claimant, and the court was entitled to accept the police officer’s description of it. The claimant’s written material had also been considered, and the Crown Court was entitled to proceed without his oral evidence after he failed to attend.

The proceedings were a judicial review claim concerning decisions made during the claimant’s criminal appeal.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant of assault by beating on 23 January 2015.
• Southwark Crown Court: heard and dismissed the claimant’s appeal in his absence on 28 May 2015.
• Southwark Crown Court: refused to reopen the appeal by letter dated 3 June 2015.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the judicial review claim.