R v Abdul Karim Naaim

In deciding whether a criminal trial should proceed in a defendant’s absence, the court must apply the relevant principles governing absent-defendant trials and ensure that the process remains fair. The defendant’s absence must not be treated as evidence of guilt, and the jury must be directed accordingly. Representation by counsel, effective challenge to the prosecution evidence and balanced directions may establish fairness. Complaints about credibility, evidential gaps, lost investigative material or non-transmission of an infection do not justify appellate intervention where they disclose no arguable error. A conviction remains safe where additional grounds of appeal rest on misunderstandings of the law or material that could not prove or disprove the central issue.

The applicant was convicted in his absence at the Crown Court at Basildon of three counts of rape of a child under 13, contrary to section 5(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He received an extended sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

He renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction and sought to advance fresh grounds. The principal issue was whether the trial had lawfully and fairly proceeded in his absence. Other grounds concerned alleged coercion of the victim, sexually transmitted infection evidence, unavailable CCTV, the indictment, investigative failures, credibility and the summing-up.

The applications for leave to appeal against conviction, including the proposed fresh grounds, were refused.

1. The trial judge had correctly set out and applied the relevant principles in R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5 when deciding to proceed in the applicant’s absence. The applicant had been warned that the trial could proceed without him, had breached bail conditions, failed to attend the pre-trial review and trial, and had ceased contact with his solicitors. The explanation later advanced for his absence was unconvincing.

2. The trial remained fair. The applicant was represented by counsel throughout, counsel had full instructions and challenged the prosecution evidence, and the judge directed the jury that the applicant’s absence was not evidence of guilt and could not be used as evidence against him.

3. The remaining grounds were unarguable. The alleged coercion was unsupported by credible evidence. The victim’s later diagnosis and treatment for chlamydia did not establish that intercourse had not occurred, and non-transmission of an infection could not resolve that issue.

4. The lost CCTV showed only common areas of the hotel and could not have resolved whether intercourse occurred. Further forensic investigation would likewise have neither proved nor disproved that issue. The indictment was valid, the victim’s credibility was a matter for the jury, and the summing-up was fair, balanced and legally correct.

The court was satisfied that nothing raised undermined the safety of the convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): applications for leave to appeal against conviction and to advance fresh grounds refused: [2026] EWCA Crim 769.
• Crown Court at Basildon: the applicant was convicted in his absence on three counts of rape of a child under 13 and sentenced to an extended term of 16 years and 5 months, with concurrent determinate sentences on the other counts.