Johnson, R (on the application of) v DPP [2005] EWHC 3123 (Admin) (08 December 2005)

Johnson, R (on the application of) v DPP [2005] EWHC 3123 (Admin) (08 December 2005)

It was wrong in principle for the District Judge to proceed with the trial in the claimant's absence on 9 May 2005 because the claimant was unrepresented due to his solicitors' withdrawal (not his own choice), there was credible evidence of mental illness, and the discretion to proceed in absence should rarely be exercised in such circumstances. The seriousness of the offence was wrongly considered as a factor. The convictions are quashed and the matter remitted for retrial.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 3123 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Webb Johnson; Defendant: DPP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Convictions
Outcome
Convictions quashed; case remitted for retrial
Legal Topics
Trial in Absence of Defendant, Right to Fair Trial, Mental Health and Fitness to Stand Trial, Judicial Discretion, Quashing of Convictions
Criminal Law Administrative Law Mental Health Law Trial in Absence of Defendant Right to Fair Trial Mental Health and Fitness to Stand Trial Judicial Discretion Quashing of Convictions

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Webb Johnson

Claimant

DPP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Convictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was lawful to proceed with a criminal trial in the absence of the defendant who claimed to be unfit due to mental illness and was unrepresented
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge properly exercised discretion in proceeding in absence
  3. 3 Whether the seriousness of the offence is a relevant factor in deciding to proceed in absence

Ratio Decidendi

It was wrong in principle for the District Judge to proceed with the trial in the claimant's absence on 9 May 2005 because the claimant was unrepresented due to his solicitors' withdrawal (not his own choice), there was credible evidence of mental illness, and the discretion to proceed in absence should rarely be exercised in such circumstances. The seriousness of the offence was wrongly considered as a factor. The convictions are quashed and the matter remitted for retrial.

Court Disposition

Convictions quashed; case remitted for retrial

Orders

  • Convictions of the claimant are quashed
  • Case remitted to Magistrates Court for retrial before a different District Judge and legal advisor