Kevin Kelenda v R

Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 51, a court may require a high-risk defendant to take part in a criminal trial by live video link where that is in the interests of justice. It must consider the Lord Chief Justice’s guidance, all the circumstances, effective participation, fair-trial prejudice, security evidence and realistic alternatives. Exceptional circumstances are not required, although whole-trial remote participation is unusual. A prescribed security-application form is not a precondition where fairness is maintained. Effective participation can exist without physical attendance where the defendant can see and hear proceedings, be seen and heard, communicate through counsel and an intermediary, and no technical or comprehension difficulty is shown. In sentencing a child for murder, mental or developmental disorder reduces culpability only where sufficiently connected with the offending.

The applicant was convicted of murder at Woolwich Crown Court and sentenced to detention during His Majesty’s pleasure with a 17-year minimum term, less time spent on remand. He sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

The conviction application challenged a direction under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requiring participation by live video link throughout the trial. The sentence application alleged that the minimum term failed to reflect the applicant’s youth, cognitive difficulties, mental disorder and adverse childhood experiences. The central issues were whether the security risk justified remote participation and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The Full Court refused both applications for leave to appeal.

2. No formal written application under Crim PD 3.1.4 had been made. That omission did not invalidate the security application. The evidence and the parties’ conduct made the issue clear, and the defence had an opportunity to respond. Where necessary, safety and security could not be subordinated to procedural formality, provided fairness was maintained.

3. Section 51 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 required consideration of the interests of justice, effective participation, the applicable guidance and all the circumstances. It imposed no exceptional-circumstances threshold, although directing whole-trial participation by live link was unusual and required careful assessment of the evidence and realistically available alternatives.

4. The trial judge was entitled to rely on the current risk assessment and oral evidence of prison staff responsible for managing the applicant. He was required to make his own assessment, which he did. The proposed arrangement involving fewer unprotected officers in the dock was unrealistic in light of the serious risk of violence. On the available options, the live link was the best practicable means of protecting staff while maintaining the trial.

5. The applicant participated effectively despite not being physically present. He could see and hear the proceedings, be seen by the jury, give evidence, and communicate through experienced counsel and an intermediary. There were no technical difficulties, and the intermediary identified no difficulty in understanding or following the proceedings. The suggested prejudice was speculative, so the conviction was not arguably unsafe.

6. Under the Sentencing Act 2020, detention during His Majesty’s pleasure was appropriate because the applicant was under 18 when he committed the murder. The statutory starting point under Schedule 21 was 17 years. The sentencing judge properly assessed aggravating and mitigating factors, including youth, immaturity, cognitive issues, mental disorder and neglect, without double counting.

7. A mental or developmental disorder reduces culpability only where there is a sufficient connection between the impairment and the offending. The judge was entitled to find no such connection where the applicant followed the victim while armed and the attack was not committed in panic. The sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive.

1. Crown Court sitting at Wood Green: The applicant pleaded guilty to the weapon offence on 13 December 2024.
2. Crown Court sitting at Woolwich: The applicant was convicted of murder on 27 March 2025 and sentenced on 19 May 2025 to detention during His Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum term of 17 years, less 526 days spent on remand. An 18-month Detention and Training Order was imposed for the weapon offence.
3. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were referred to the Full Court. Both applications were refused.