Gheorghe Badelita v R

A defendant may be excluded from parts of a criminal trial where disruptive conduct threatens witnesses or jurors, even if the conduct may have a medical explanation. The court must balance effective participation against protection of the trial process and consider practical alternatives where possible. A courtroom outburst closely replicating the alleged offending may be probative of guilt rather than merely prejudicial. It may properly be left to the jury as propensity evidence, subject to fair directions. The absence of medical evidence does not automatically make convictions unsafe where the defence was effectively advanced and the evidence of guilt was strong.

The appellant was convicted at Cambridge Crown Court of common assault, three offences of threatening to kill and criminal damage arising from incidents on 18 and 19 December 2023. He received an aggregate sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment and restraining orders.

During trial, he had a serious outburst in the dock, including threats to kill his wife. The judge continued the trial, excluded him during evidence from certain prosecution witnesses, initially directed the jury to disregard the incident, and later directed that it could be used as propensity evidence after the appellant gave evidence about it. The central issues were whether these decisions made the convictions unsafe and whether his possible acquired brain injury required an adjournment or alternative arrangements.

Appeal dismissed. The convictions were not unsafe.

1. The trial judge was entitled to continue after the outburst. The conduct closely replicated the threats charged and was highly probative of guilt, rather than merely disruptive or prejudicial.
2. Excluding the appellant during evidence from hostile prosecution witnesses was necessary and appropriate. A muted video link or other alternative should have been considered if practicable, but no realistic alternative was available and the appellant remained able to give counsel instructions.
3. The judge was entitled to refuse an adjournment for a psychiatric report. Earlier fitness-to-plead consideration established only that the appellant could perform the limited legal functions required when calm. The later evidence suggested disinhibition but did not establish inability to control his conduct. The possible brain injury might reduce culpability but did not disadvantage the prosecution’s case on guilt.
4. The eventual bad-character direction was correct in law. Although changing from an instruction to disregard the outburst to permitting its use as propensity evidence raised a fairness concern, the direction given was legally correct and the strong evidence meant that the convictions were safe.

The appeal was dismissed on the ground for which leave had been granted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 20 November 2024, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction on the ground for which leave was granted and refused leave on the remaining grounds.
• Crown Court at Cambridge: On 22 July 2024, the appellant was convicted. On 2 September 2024 he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 28 months’ imprisonment, with restraining orders.