R v Bukari Mohammed Abdi

A conviction is not rendered unsafe merely because an unrepresented defendant declines properly available assistance or voluntarily absents himself from trial. A judge may refuse a further transfer of legal aid after repeated breakdowns caused by the defendant's non-cooperation. Where the court lawfully prevents personal cross-examination and appoints an independent advocate, the defendant's refusal to use that advocate does not make the trial unfair. Fair and clear judicial directions can ensure that neither self-representation nor absence is treated as an admission of guilt.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook of street robbery and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. He had been represented by four successive firms of solicitors, each relationship having broken down, and was unrepresented at trial after a further legal-aid transfer was refused.

The prosecution obtained an order under section 36 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 preventing him from personally cross-examining the complainant. An independent advocate was appointed, but the applicant declined that assistance and later voluntarily absented himself from the remainder of the trial.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application to appeal against conviction. The central issue was whether the trial-management decisions and the conduct of the trial made the conviction unsafe or the trial unfair.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. There was no arguable ground for contending that the conviction was unsafe or that the trial was unfair.

2. The judge was entitled to refuse a fifth transfer of legal aid. Four previous solicitor-client relationships had broken down, and the final solicitors reported the applicant's refusal to cooperate and abusive conduct. In those circumstances, the refusal of a further transfer was a proper case-management decision.

3. The judge was fully justified in granting the prosecution's application under section 36 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The court then secured an independent advocate to conduct any cross-examination after taking the applicant's instructions. The applicant chose not to accept that representation. Nothing suggested that the advocate was incompetent, and that choice did not impair the fairness of the trial.

4. The applicant was correctly told that he could not address the jury at the stage he sought to do so, and that he could not make an opening speech where he proposed to call no witness other than himself. He could not use the complainant's witness statement as a substitute for matters that should have been put in cross-examination.

5. The applicant was given detailed warning that the trial would proceed if he voluntarily remained absent. The judge nevertheless ensured fairness by asking limited questions of the complainant, warning the jury not to treat the absence, self-representation, or refusal of the appointed advocate as an admission of guilt, and giving clear directions on the joint-enterprise issue. The remaining complaints about the prosecution's presentation and the solicitors disclosed no basis for disturbing the unanimous conviction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by the single judge.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook On 14 March 2024, a jury convicted the applicant of street robbery. He was sentenced the following day to two years' imprisonment.