Podmore v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE HIDDEN,LORD JUSTICE McCOWAN |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1995 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1995] EWCA Civ J0702-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | CO-3429-95 |
| Date | 02 July 1995 |
[1995] EWCA Civ J0702-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice McCowan
-and-
Mr Justice Hidden
CO-3429-95
MR S DREW (instructed by Jewels & Wainwrights, Stafford) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR M SHOKER (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Stafford) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Tuesday 2nd July 1996
This is an application by way of a case stated, by the Crown Court at Stafford, in respect of its adjudication, sitting on appeal from the justices for the County of Staffordshire in and for the Petty Session Division of Mid-Staffordshire.
It is a matter to be noted at the outset that the case comes before us with a skeleton argument by the appellant, which is entirely agreed with by the respondents. It is cause for some concern, in this Court, that the matter was left as late as Friday before any attention was paid on behalf of the respondents to the fact that this appeal was about to come into the list in the Divisional Court. It should not be beyond the wit of man, on good organising skills, for a look to be had, in good time, at appeals where it is expected that there will be no issue at all so that public costs and waste of time can be avoided.
Put very shortly, the situation was that on 2nd June the appellant was charged with burglary, contrary to section 1(9)1(b) of the Theft Act 1968. The allegation was that on that day he had entered, as a trespasser, a dwelling and stolen a Saisho television, a video recorder and £15 in cash.
On 16th February 1995 the justices in the county of Stafford heard the said charge and convicted the appellant. On 21st February 1995 a notice to appeal against conviction was lodged. On 7th April 1995 the appeal was listed at the Stafford Crown Court, but the case was stood out because there was insufficient court time.
On 28th June 1995 the case was listed for mention, and was due to be heard the next day. The respondents then had a witness missing, but they decided to continue without the witness.
The next day, 29th June, again the appeal was listed for hearing and this time one of the respondents's exhibits was missing. The case was stood out for that exhibit to be traced.
The events that come before this Court happened about a month later, on 28th July 1995. The appeal was listed for hearing and the appellant failed to attend himself, although he was there in a sense that his counsel was there. There was no explanation for his non-attendance but the appellant had given instructions to his legal representatives to contest the appeal. No instructions had been given to abandon.
An application was made to adjourn the case due to the appellant's absence as he had attended all previous hearings, but that application was refused. The court indicated it would dismiss the appeal without hearing the evidence. Objection was taken to that course, but the appeal was nonetheless dismissed without hearing evidence.
It is against that dismissal that this appeal arises.
The issue before the court was said to be that the court ruled that it was entitled in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal without hearing the evidence where the case was listed for hearing and the appellant had failed to attend.
The appellant submits, and the respondent concedes, four significant points: that if an appellant is represented by a legal representative on appeal against conviction, he is deemed to be present. Secondly, any application to hear the appeal in his absence is unnecessary and merely a courteousy to the court. Thirdly, in the absence of any application to abandon the appeal, the Court should proceed to re-hear the evidence. Fourthly, the court has no power to dismiss the appeal without hearing the evidence.
All those matters are made good in a decision of this Court, that is to say R v. Croydon Crown Court Ex parte Clair (1986) 83 Cr.App.R. 202, a case which is in many ways analogous to the present.
The appellant error here was that he sought to bring up and quash an order of the Crown Court at Croydon, refusing his application that an appeal of the applicant against his conviction for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty should proceed in his absence and an order of mandamus directing the Crown Court to hear his appeal.
The facts of the matter can be shortly stated. It was something which happened in the summer of 1984, after a summer festival had taken place in South London, and a bus, upon which the appellant and two friends...
To continue reading
Request your trial