R (Davies) v Solihull Justices [2008] All ER (D) 310 (Apr)
After the case had been called on, it was discovered that the defendant had been excluded from the court building by the court security staff because he was allegedly aggressive towards staff there.
The justices ruled that the defendant had, by virtue of his conduct, voluntarily absented himself from the hearing of his case, and that he should be tried in his absence.
HELD It is only in very rare circumstances that a criminal trial can proceed in the absence of the accused. In general, a trial could only proceed in his absence where either the accused was disturbing proceedings in court (so that his removal was necessary), or where he had absconded or deliberately absented himself from the hearing.
In the present case, the defendant’s misbehaviour did not justify excluding him from his own trial. Moreover, the justices erred in treating him as being voluntarily absent, since he had wanted to be in court but was prevented by the exclusion.
