Taylor & Anor, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 680 (19 February 2008)

Taylor & Anor, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 680 (19 February 2008)

The judge was entitled to continue the trial in the appellant's involuntary absence due to ill-health, as an adjournment would not have remedied the situation and no prejudice was caused to the defence. The directions to the jury on count 5, when read as a whole, sufficiently focused them on the relevant period of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Crim 680
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant/defendant: David Jeremy Taylor; Applicant/defendant: Tina Kaisa Paivarinta-Taylor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; applications refused.
Legal Topics
Right to Be Present at Trial, Trial in Absence of Defendant, False Accounting, Deception, Directions to Jury, Dishonesty, Adjournment Due to Ill Health
Criminal Law Right to Be Present at Trial Trial in Absence of Defendant False Accounting Deception Directions to Jury Dishonesty Adjournment Due to Ill Health

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

David Jeremy Taylor

Appellant/defendant

Tina Kaisa Paivarinta-Taylor

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial judge may continue a criminal trial in the involuntary absence of the defendant due to ill-health
  2. 2 Whether the jury was properly directed on the period relevant to dishonesty in a right to buy application (count 5)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to continue the trial in the appellant's involuntary absence due to ill-health, as an adjournment would not have remedied the situation and no prejudice was caused to the defence. The directions to the jury on count 5, when read as a whole, sufficiently focused them on the relevant period of dishonesty, rendering the convictions safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; applications refused.