R v Elryck Egeton Meek

In a criminal appeal, proceedings may continue in the defendant’s absence where his conduct makes timely attendance impracticable, provided the judge considers the interests of the defendant, witnesses and jury. Access to a seized phone may be conditioned on providing its PIN where direct access creates an obvious risk of deletion and a complete download can be examined by both sides. A defendant is not automatically entitled to complete downloads of complainants’ phones containing irrelevant material. Late disclosure does not inevitably require an adjournment where representatives have sufficient time to identify material requiring instructions. Case-management rulings do not, without more, establish apparent bias. A judge may explain a defendant’s absences to the jury where necessary to correct a deliberate misrepresentation, provided the jury is directed not to allow the information to prejudice its assessment of the evidence.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court of six offences against his former partner, including controlling or coercive behaviour and assaults. His case was that the allegations had been fabricated.

He challenged rulings concerning access to and disclosure of mobile-phone material, the refusal of an adjournment, the continuation of the trial during his absence, the trial judge’s alleged apparent bias, and the judge’s explanation to the jury of his absences. A single judge refused leave to appeal against conviction. The applicant renewed that application before the full court, which considered whether the matters relied on rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. Renewed application. The application for leave to appeal against conviction failed and was refused. There was no arguable ground of appeal.
2. Defendant’s phone. The trial judge was entitled to refuse direct access to the seized phone because there was an obvious risk that material might be deleted. Requiring the applicant to provide his PIN enabled the police to make a full download capable of examination by experts on both sides. The fact that refusal to provide the PIN was not then a separate criminal offence did not make the ruling unjust, since the remedy was within the applicant’s control.
3. Other phone downloads. The applicant was not entitled to complete downloads of the complainant’s or her daughter’s phones, which would inevitably contain much irrelevant material. Where specific matters were advanced, suitable search terms could be provided to the prosecution. The prosecution had reviewed the material and complied with its disclosure duty.
4. Late disclosure. The late service of the phone material was not condoned, but it did not require an adjournment. Counsel had sufficient time to take instructions, the representatives had an opportunity to identify material requiring particular instructions, and vacating the trial would have caused a very long delay.
5. Absence from trial. The applicant’s conduct made it impracticable to secure his attendance at the relevant time. The judge was required to consider not only his interests but also those of the witnesses and jury. The applicant had only himself to blame for being absent from parts of the trial.
6. Bias and jury directions. Disclosure and adjournment rulings were case-management decisions and, even if wrong, could be challenged by appeal; they could not themselves establish apparent bias. The judge’s handling of the reported gesture involved no finding against the applicant and occurred outside the jury’s presence. The applicant’s deliberate misrepresentation of events created a risk of the jury being misled, so the judge was entitled to explain the relevant absences and directed the jury not to allow that information to prejudice its assessment of the evidence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The full court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction: [2023] EWCA Crim 1421.
• Court of Appeal single judge: Leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
• Crown Court: The applicant was convicted of six offences against his former partner and was later sentenced for those offences and an offence of breaching a non-molestation order.