header-logo header-logo

29 February 2008
Issue: 7310 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

CRIMINAL LITIGATION

R v Taylor [2008] All ER (D) 272 (Feb)

The defendant was unable to attend court during the course of his trial. The judge concluded that, although the defendant had a legitimate medical reason for his absence, the trial should continue in his absence.

HELD In cases where the defendant is absent involuntarily, the judge is obliged to consider how long the proposed adjournment is likely to be and the extent to which the legal representatives could, in the defendant’s absence, receive and act on instructions.

The court should take into account the public interest in ensuring continuous trials; the public interest does not allow the trial to be put off for an indefinite period.

However, where a defendant is absent through ill health, the judge must be astute to see if an adjournment for a short period will allow the defendant to recover, and such an adjournment should not be refused unless the circumstances compel it.

If the judge has doubts about the genuineness or gravity of the defendant’s symptoms, the proper course is to adjourn

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll