Isn a trial in absence a bit draconian and unnecessary given that relatively few accused persons fail to attend?
A. Although the number of accused is relatively few we have to remember the witnesses who have attended and given evidence. The absence of the accused may be for months or years. Some of these witnesses may be children or elderly. The longer the delay caused by the accused’s absconding, the more chance there is of the evidence of the witness being lost due to the length of time between the alleged offence and the date of any trial. There are however 3 hurdles to be overcome before a trial may proceed in the absence of the accused: • evidence has to be led which substantially implicates the accused • the judge has to consider the point in proceedings at which the accused absconds and • it has to be in the interests of justice to proceed.
Related Questions
- Isn a trial in absence a bit draconian and unnecessary given that relatively few accused persons fail to attend?
- When will jury selection begin in the trial of Carlos Trujillo, accused in the murder of Andrew Kissel?
- When I complete my course assessments/qualifications, what grading is given e.g. pass or fail?
