Two of the applicants had absconded. One of them Bradley absconded during his first trial, and was convicted in his absence at a re-trial. He sought to persuade the Court that grounds of appeal lodged on his behalf by counsel and solicitors who continued to act for him even after his disappearance were a nullity having been lodged without authority. The Court held that the grounds were lodged ‘within the scope of their implied or deemed instructions in accordance with the decision in R v Charles and Tucker . .’ and then ratified by the applicant on his return to the United Kingdom.
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Crim 2507
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Regina v Charles, Regina v Tucker CACD 20-Feb-2001
Charles had absconded on the day he was convicted of robbery shortly before the summing up. He was arrested over a year later and sentenced. He gave instructions to his solicitors to advance and renew his applications for leave to appeal conviction . .
Cited by:
Cited – Okedare, Regina v CACD 27-Feb-2014
The court heard applications for leave to appeal on behalf of applicants who had either absconded or disappeared.
Held: The court considered whether the lawyers filing the appeals had authority, whether express or implied. ‘we are satisfied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.539589
