Junior Lawal v The Crown Court at Cambridge

A Crown Court hearing an appeal from a magistrates’ court has power to strike an appeal from the list where an unrepresented appellant fails to attend. That power is discretionary, not mandatory. The court must apply the interests of justice test, balancing the appellant’s position with the interests of the prosecution, witnesses and effective listing. Where the appellant has communicated that he is on his way, the court should ordinarily allow sufficient time for his arrival and explanation before striking out the appeal. Failure to do so may be procedurally unfair and unreasonable. A dismissed appeal may be restored where the appellant provides a very strong and satisfactory explanation for the absence.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Crown Court at Cambridge’s decision on 15 November 2021 to proceed in his absence and dismiss his appeal against convictions entered in his absence by the magistrates’ court. He was unrepresented and was travelling to the hearing after experiencing difficulty contacting the court. The Crown Court declined to adjourn further and struck the appeal from the list.

On 13 December 2021, the Crown Court rejected an application made under section 142 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 to reopen the matter, considering that provision insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The central issues were whether the Crown Court had power to strike out an appeal in those circumstances, whether that power was exercised reasonably, and whether the appeal should have been restored.

1. Power to strike out. The claim succeeded and the Crown Court’s decision was quashed. Following R v Croydon Crown Court, Ex p Clair, the Crown Court has power to strike an appeal from the list where an appellant is absent and unrepresented. R v Guildford Crown Court Ex p Brewer confirms that the power is discretionary rather than mandatory.
2. Represented appellants. R (on the application of Hayes) v Chelmsford Crown Court did not require every appeal to proceed to an evidential rehearing before dismissal. It concerned an absent but represented appellant. By section 122 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, a represented appellant is deemed to be present, so the court may adjourn or hear and determine the appeal, but may not strike it from the list.
3. Interests of justice. The decision whether to strike out or adjourn had to be determined by applying the interests of justice test. Relevant considerations included the reason for absence, whether the appellant was attempting to attend, the position of the prosecution and witnesses, and the court’s listing pressures. The court had not heard a full explanation, gave no reasons for refusing a further adjournment, and knew that the claimant was travelling to court. The only reasonable course was to adjourn at least until the afternoon so that he could arrive and explain his lateness.
4. The unfairness was aggravated when the claimant was turned away on arrival and was not told that he could seek restoration. His application on 13 December was wrong in form but substantively sought restoration. The court should have considered it by reference to the principle in Ex p Clair.
5. Although unnecessary to the result, the court stated that the claimant would have had a very strong and satisfactory reason for restoration, having regard to repeated pandemic-related vacated listings, his status as a litigant in person, the confusing notice and his attempts to contact the court. The Crown Court was directed to hear the appeal.

• Crown Court at Cambridge: On 15 November 2021, struck the claimant’s appeal from the list after proceeding in his absence.
• Crown Court at Cambridge: On 13 December 2021, declined to reopen the matter under section 142 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Quashed the Crown Court’s decision and directed it to hear the appeal.