R v Darren Balaam

A defendant released on bail bears the responsibility of keeping in contact with the court and their solicitors. Uncertainty about whether a solicitor gave express notice of a trial date will not, without more, establish reasonable cause for failing to surrender under section 6(1) of the Bail Act 1976.

Section 6(2) operates as a fallback: a defendant cannot avoid the continuing obligation to surrender by failing to find out what has happened in proceedings of which they are aware. In sentencing for failure to surrender, harm must be assessed in the round. The state of the underlying prosecution may be relevant, but a court need not speculate about whether that prosecution would ultimately have proceeded.

The appellant had been granted conditional bail after pleading not guilty to burglary. He did not attend the listed trial date and was arrested about four years later. The prosecution subsequently offered no evidence on the burglary allegation.

At Guildford Crown Court, he was convicted of failing to surrender to bail and sentenced to 28 days’ imprisonment. He contended that he had not been told the trial date and therefore had reasonable cause, or could not be guilty under section 6(2) of the Bail Act 1976. He also challenged the sentencing categorisation of culpability and harm.

1. Both appeals were dismissed. The judge had found that the appellant lacked reasonable cause for failing to attend the trial, and had therefore found a breach of section 6(1) of the Bail Act 1976. The appeal proceeded on the false premise that the judge had accepted a reasonable excuse.

2. Uncertainty in the solicitors’ records about notification of the precise trial date did not excuse the appellant. He knew that proceedings and a trial were pending, accepted that he should remain in contact with his solicitors and the court, and made no attempt to do so. Further evidence showed that the solicitors had in fact made repeated attempts to contact him. The obligation to maintain contact rested on him, whether or not it was an express condition of bail.

3. The court also rejected the proposed construction of section 6(2). That provision is a fallback which preserves the defendant’s obligation to surrender as soon as reasonably practicable. Express knowledge of the exact trial date was not required for a breach. This reasoning was alternative to the finding of liability under section 6(1).

4. The judge was entitled to place culpability in category A. The appellant’s failure to maintain contact was a deliberate attempt to evade or delay justice. Although the state of the underlying prosecution could generally be relevant to harm, the judge was entitled to assess harm in the round and to find delay and interference with the administration of justice. The 28-day sentence was at the bottom of the applicable category 1A range and was not manifestly excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2022] EWCA Crim 692, dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence.

2. Crown Court at Guildford: On 28 April 2022, convicted the appellant of failing to surrender to bail and imposed 28 days’ imprisonment.