Evans v Director of Public Prosecutions

On an appeal by case stated, the High Court may interfere with a Crown Court decision only where it was wrong in law or made in excess of jurisdiction. A transfer decision is wrong in law only if no reasonable court could have reached it on the material available. A defendant generally has the right to attend a criminal trial, and a court must exercise care before proceeding in the defendant’s absence. Where absence is asserted on medical grounds, the court must assess the evidence available, distinguish genuine incapacity from inadequate or spurious explanations, and consider whether an adjournment or later attendance could secure fairness. The court may proceed in the defendant’s absence where the material reasonably supports that course and the overriding objective is satisfied.

Mr Evans appealed by case stated against decisions of the Crown Court at Worcester on 22 July 2016. The Crown Court had refused his request to transfer his appeal from Worcester to Leeds or Bradford, proceeded in his absence, and dismissed his appeal against a magistrates’ conviction for failing to provide information under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Mr Evans relied on ulcerative colitis, incontinence and recent heart surgery. The Case Stated recorded that he had not attended an earlier directions hearing, had provided no medical evidence showing that he could not attend by train, and had telephoned on the hearing date without such evidence. The central questions were whether the transfer request should have been granted and whether the appeal could fairly proceed in his absence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The High Court could interfere only if the Crown Court’s decision was wrong in law or exceeded its jurisdiction under section 28(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. There was no excess of jurisdiction. The transfer decision was lawful unless no reasonable court could have reached it on the material before it.
2. The Crown Court was entitled to conclude that Mr Evans had not shown that he could not travel by train. His earlier letter suggested that train travel was possible, and the court was entitled to consider the availability of lavatory facilities, the location of Worcester station and the attendance of the prosecution witnesses.
3. A defendant has a general right to be present at trial. The discretion to proceed in the defendant’s absence must be exercised with the utmost care and caution. Relevant considerations include the defendant’s conduct, whether attendance could be secured later, the likely length of an adjournment, the disadvantage to the defendant, the risk of an improper conclusion being drawn from the absence, and the public interest in the timely resolution of criminal proceedings.
4. Medical grounds require assessment of the evidence actually placed before the court. Where medical evidence shows involuntary illness or incapacity, proceeding in the defendant’s absence will be very rare. Conversely, where the material reasonably permits the court to regard the explanation as inadequate or spurious, or identifies an exceptional reason to proceed, the court may do so. Here, the telephone note and outpatient appointment card did not establish unfitness to attend, and the Crown Court was entitled to proceed.
5. The appeal was dismissed. The High Court emphasised that an appeal by case stated proceeds on the facts stated in the Case Stated. Any disputed facts should have been challenged while the draft Case Stated was being settled.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by case stated dismissed.
• Crown Court at Worcester: on 22 July 2016, refused transfer, proceeded in Mr Evans’s absence and dismissed his appeal.
• Redditch Magistrates’ Court: on 25 April 2016, convicted Mr Evans of failing to provide information identifying the driver.