Salmon v Leeds Crown Court

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for judicial review challenging the decision of the Crown Court to hear the Appellant's appeal against conviction in his absence on 26 July 2019. The Appellant was originally convicted on 6 November 2018 at a Magistrates' Court for an offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, relating to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause a person to believe that immediate unlawful violence would be used. The offence occurred on 19 May 2018 involving neighbours.

The Appellant appealed the conviction and sentence to the Crown Court, representing himself throughout. The appeal hearing was repeatedly adjourned and experienced multiple procedural difficulties, including the Appellant arriving late, refusing to identify himself, and raising jurisdictional arguments based on "common law" which the court rejected. On 26 July 2019, the appeal proceeded in the Appellant's absence after he informed the court that his car had broken down and he was waiting for roadside assistance. The court adjourned the hearing to 12pm to allow him to attend, but he did not appear. The appeal was heard by an advocate appointed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and was dismissed.

The Appellant subsequently applied for judicial review, claiming wrongful dismissal of his appeal in his absence and raising various complaints about police conduct and court jurisdiction. Permission to apply for judicial review was initially refused but later granted to challenge the decision to proceed in his absence on 26 July 2019. The Appellant did not file a witness statement as directed but submitted documents related to his car breakdown. The court held a remote hearing to consider the matter.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Crown Court was entitled to proceed with the Appellant's appeal hearing in his absence on 26 July 2019.
2. Whether the Appellant was given a fair opportunity to attend the hearing despite his car breakdown.
3. Whether the Crown Court had jurisdiction to adjourn the appeal on 7 June 2019 and subsequently hear the appeal.
4. Whether the Appellant's procedural and substantive rights under the Criminal Procedure Rules and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights were respected.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant asserted that he could not attend the hearing on 26 July 2019 because his car had broken down and that he had kept the court informed.
• He challenged the court's jurisdiction, claiming common law jurisdiction and alleging that the court lacked authority to proceed or adjourn the appeal.
• He contended that the adjournment on 7 June 2019 was null and void and that the court’s actions amounted to fraud and treason.
• The Appellant did not file a witness statement explaining the events but provided documents related to the car breakdown.
• He did not present any substantive defence to the original charge or the appeal beyond jurisdictional objections.

Respondent's Arguments

• The prosecution submitted that the Crown Court exercised its discretion properly and proportionately under the Criminal Procedure Rules.
• They argued the decision to proceed in the Appellant’s absence was within the range of reasonable options available to the court.
• They pointed out the absence of any witness statement from the Appellant despite directions to file one.
• The prosecution further contended that the Appellant had an alternative remedy available by applying to the Crown Court to set aside the decision rather than judicial review.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered whether the Crown Court’s decision to proceed with the appeal in the Appellant’s absence was reasonably open to it. The court found that the Crown Court was justified in its actions. Upon being informed of the Appellant’s vehicle breakdown, the Crown Court adjourned the hearing to 12pm, providing the Appellant with a practical opportunity to attend by alternative means such as taxi. The Appellant was located a relatively short distance from the court and had been informed of the adjournment and start time. His failure to attend was thus voluntary.

The court emphasized that the Crown Court’s discretion to adjourn or proceed is governed by the overriding objective in the Criminal Procedure Rules, which balances fairness to both prosecution and defence, respects defendants’ rights under Article 6 ECHR, protects witnesses and victims, and promotes efficient case management. Given the lengthy history of the case and multiple adjournments, the court found the Crown Court’s decision to proceed was fair and proportionate.

The Appellant’s jurisdictional challenges based on "common law" were dismissed as legally unfounded. The court reaffirmed that the Magistrates’ Court and Crown Court had proper statutory jurisdiction to try and hear the appeal. The Criminal Procedure Rules expressly empower courts to adjourn hearings, including the adjournment on 7 June 2019.

Although there was an alternative remedy available to the Appellant by applying to the Crown Court to set aside the decision, the court did not dismiss the claim on this ground, noting that the Appellant may have been advised to seek judicial review. However, ultimately, the court concluded that the judicial review claim lacked merit and dismissed it.

Holding and Implications

The court dismissed the Appellant's claim for judicial review.

The direct effect of the decision is to uphold the Crown Court’s authority to proceed with the appeal hearing in the Appellant’s absence on 26 July 2019. The ruling confirms that the Crown Court acted within its discretion and complied with procedural fairness and legal standards. The court rejected the Appellant’s jurisdictional arguments as legally baseless and clarified the scope of the court’s powers under the Criminal Procedure Rules. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reinforces existing principles regarding court discretion to proceed in a defendant’s absence when given reasonable opportunity to attend.