R v Peter Gifford & Anor

Applicants who deliberately absconded before trial cannot rely on their own absence to justify an eight-year extension of time for appealing. Even alleged late discovery of conviction caused by continued absconding is not a good reason. A criminal trial may proceed in the defendant’s absence where the defendant voluntarily stays away, had an ample opportunity to attend, gives no indication of timely return, and a delay would conflict with the public interest in a trial within a reasonable time. The court must also consider fairness, including prejudice to an attending co-defendant, the documentary nature of evidence and appropriate jury directions. Withdrawal of representatives caused by defendants’ own conduct did not make the trials unfair. A foreign underlying fraud did not invalidate a money-laundering indictment concerning funds received in the United Kingdom.

Peter Gifford and Penelope Lawton, partners, were convicted after two 2016 trials at Truro Crown Court conducted in their absence. They had absconded shortly before trial and remained outside the jurisdiction. Mr Gifford was convicted of mortgage fraud and money laundering; Miss Lawton was convicted of mortgage fraud and acquitted of the money-laundering allegations. The applicants sought lengthy extensions of time and leave to appeal. A single judge refused both applications.

On renewal, they argued that proceeding in their absence, the withdrawal of their legal representatives, alleged evidential and indictment defects, and human-rights complaints made the convictions unsafe. The central questions were whether the delay justified an extension and whether any arguable ground of appeal existed.

The renewed applications were refused. The applicants failed to establish any good reason for the delay or any arguable ground of appeal.

1. Extensions of time. The delay resulted from the applicants’ deliberate decision to abscond before trial and remain fugitives. The court rejected their claimed alternative explanations, including alleged late discovery of the convictions, psychiatric injury and lack of funds. Even if they had discovered the convictions only in 2024, that would have resulted from their own absconding and would not constitute a good reason for extending time.
2. Trials in absence. Applying the test laid down by the House of Lords in Jones [2003] 1 AC 1, the trial judges were plainly and unarguably entitled to proceed. The applicants had voluntarily absented themselves, had ample opportunity to attend, gave no indication when they might return, and could not have ensured a trial within a reasonable time if proceedings had been adjourned. The public interest in timely trials and the prejudice to the attending co-defendant also supported continuation. The documentary evidence and careful jury directions ensured fairness.
3. Representation and convictions. The withdrawal of the applicants’ representatives resulted from the applicants’ own conduct, including misleading assurances that they would attend. The trial judges nevertheless ensured fair trials. The mortgage-fraud grounds were unsupported by any arguable error. The money-laundering indictment was not void merely because the underlying fraud occurred abroad, since the money was received into a United Kingdom account. The differing verdicts as between the applicants and the co-defendant did not make the convictions unsafe.
4. Other orders. Bail did not arise because leave to appeal was refused. A loss-of-time order was not made because the applicants were not serving their sentences. However, under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, they were ordered to pay £440.64 for the reasonable costs of the transcripts.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal were refused, with a costs order under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985: [2025] EWCA Crim 1748.
2. Single judge of the Court of Appeal: refused the applicants’ applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal.
3. Truro Crown Court: Recorder Tyson and His Honour Judge Clark permitted the two 2016 trials to proceed in the applicants’ absence. The applicants were convicted on the mortgage-fraud charges; Mr Gifford was also convicted of money laundering.