Information Note on the Court’s case-law 56
September 2003
Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 30900/02
Decision 9.9.2003 [Section IV]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Trial and conviction in the absence of the accused and his legal representatives: inadmissible
The applicant was arrested and charged with conspiracy to rob a post office and released on bail. On the date fixed for the trial he did not surrender to the court. As they had no instructions from him, his lawyers withdrew from the case. The trial judge acknowledged that in principle it would seem wrong to pursue a criminal trial in the absence of the defendant or his legal representatives, but in the exercise of his discretion he decided to proceed with the trial, considering in particular that it was in the interest and psychological needs of the 35 witnesses (some of whom had been traumatised by the events) to have the case dealt with. The applicant was convicted in absentia and sentenced to thirteen years’ imprisonment. He was arrested a year later. He lodged an appeal but the Court of Appeal considered that the trial judge had exercised his discretion properly and that the applicant had waived his right to be present and legally represented at the trial by his deliberate failure to appear. During the appeal proceedings, the applicant did not submit any fresh evidence or contest the existing evidence against him to counter the merits of the conviction. The Court of Appeal concluded that there were no reasons to hold that his conviction was unsafe or that his trial in absentia had been unfair. The applicant appealed to the House of Lords, which considered that, taken as a whole, the proceedings had been fair.
Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 and § 3: Concerning the possible waiver by the applicant of his rights under Article 6 as a result of his failure to appear at the trial, a waiver could not be inferred because the applicant could not have been expected to know that he was liable to be tried and convicted in his absence. Nevertheless, given that in the appeal proceedings the applicant had the possibility of submitting new evidence – and thus of obtaining a fresh determination of the conviction – the proceedings taken as a whole had been fair: manifestly ill-founded.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy