R v Geraint Alun Baldwin

A trial may proceed in an absent defendant’s absence only if the court is satisfied that the defendant has waived the right to attend and that the trial will remain fair. The decision requires great care, particularly where the defendant is unrepresented. The court must balance fairness to the defence with fairness to the prosecution, witnesses and the public interest, applying the relevant circumstances identified in R v Hayward [2001] EWCA Crim 168.

On appellate review, the trial judge’s decision must be assessed sequentially on the information then available, without hindsight. A defendant who knowingly ceases contact with representatives and fails to attend may waive both attendance and representation. Directions and a fair summary of a defence statement may sufficiently protect fairness.

The applicant was tried at Newport Crown Court in his absence and without representation. He was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.

He had pleaded not guilty and served a defence statement advancing self-defence. He later ceased contact with his privately instructed solicitors, did not put them in funds, and failed to attend trial despite information from which the trial judge found that he knew its date. The judge issued a warrant and decided that the trial should proceed.

The applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction. He contended that the trial should not have proceeded in his absence and that the judge’s summary of his defence statement was inadequate. The central issue was whether the trial was fair despite his absence and lack of representation.

1. The applications were refused. The conviction was safe and no purpose would be served by extending time for an appeal with no prospect of success.

2. Rule 25.2(b) of the Criminal Procedure Rules required the court to be satisfied both that the applicant had waived attendance and that the trial would be fair despite his absence. The court applied the guiding principles in R v Hayward [2001] EWCA Crim 168. A trial in the absence of an unrepresented defendant remains rare and requires great care, but the judge’s discretion was not exceeded.

3. The decision to start and continue the trial had to be judged on the material available at each stage, rather than with the benefit of later events. The applicant had received notice that the trial would take place in January, failed for months to contact his solicitors or provide current contact details, and did not attend voluntarily after learning that police were seeking him. The judge was entitled to infer a deliberate and voluntary waiver of attendance and representation.

4. The relevant balance supported proceeding. The offence was serious; witnesses had already waited about 18 months; an adjournment was likely to be substantial; and the risks arising from absence could be mitigated by directions. Although the applicant was disadvantaged by being unable to give his account on self-defence, that disadvantage resulted from his own choices.

5. The judge adequately summarised the nature of the defence in the defence statement and correctly directed the jury that absence was not evidence of guilt. Under section 6(e) of the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996, he was not required to provide the jury with the statement or treat it as evidence. The statutory conditions for giving the jury a copy were not met. The court also observed that, after summing-up, evidence could not generally be re-opened or further speeches permitted: R v Dunster [2021] EWCA Crim 1555.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction: [2023] EWCA Crim 1475.
• Crown Court at Newport: tried the applicant in his absence, convicted him of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.