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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll