Collins, R v

Whether an accused had a reasonable excuse for failing to attend trial is assessed on the whole of the evidence. Medical material based on self-reported symptoms does not prevent a court from finding deception where independent evidence and the accused’s explanations are inconsistent with the asserted incapacity.

An appellate court will not disturb a carefully reached factual finding that was open to the trial judge. A deliberate failure to attend which disrupts an ongoing multi-handed trial, causes severance and requires substantial additional court time may properly be treated as offending of high culpability and serious harm to the administration of justice.

The appellant was being tried with 11 others for conspiracy to commit fraud. During the trial he was excused from attendance on several occasions because of reported pain and medication. On 8 February 2016 he did not attend when he had not been excused. His case was severed and adjourned for a later trial.

At the Crown Court at Birmingham, the judge considered medical evidence, CCTV footage showing the appellant undertaking shopping and driving, and evidence from the appellant and others. The judge found that the appellant had deceived his doctors and the court, had failed to attend without reasonable excuse, and imposed six months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against both the finding and sentence.

1. Appeals dismissed. The judge was entitled to find beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had no reasonable excuse for failing to attend on 8 February 2016.

2. The judge had approached the CCTV evidence with appropriate caution and had considered it together with the medical records, the evidence of the appellant and his witness, and the appellant’s explanations. The medical opinions depended materially upon symptoms reported by the appellant. The judge was entitled to conclude that those reports were deceptive because the footage, its timing, and the appellant’s presentation were inconsistent with the incapacity and medication effects he asserted.

3. The Court of Appeal held that there was no proper basis to interfere with that factual assessment. The finding was safe and correct on the available material.

4. The six-month sentence was also upheld. The failure to attend was a deliberate attempt to disrupt a trial involving several defendants. It caused the appellant’s case to be severed, delayed his trial, and required additional court time. The judge was well placed to assess that harm to the administration of justice, to regard the offending as of high culpability, and to impose a sentence below the upper end of the applicable guideline range after allowing for personal mitigation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2016] EWCA Crim 682, dismissed the appeals against the finding of failure to attend without reasonable excuse and against sentence.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: The appellant was found to have failed to attend trial without reasonable excuse and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.