KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
KAMIL SZYMANKOWSKI | Appellant |
|
- and – |
||
CIRCUIT COURT IN KONIN, POLAND |
Respondent |
____________________
Alex du Sautoy for the Respondent, instructed by the CPS
Hearing date: 25 June 2025
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Wall:
"20 Case where person has been convicted
(1) If the judge is required to proceed under this section (by virtue of section 11) he must decide whether the person was convicted in his presence.
(2) If the judge decides the question in subsection (1) in the affirmative he must proceed under section 21.
(3) If the judge decides that question in the negative he must decide whether the person deliberately absented himself from his trial.
(4) If the judge decides the question in subsection (3) in the affirmative he must proceed under section 21.
(5) If the judge decides that question in the negative he must decide whether the person would be entitled to a retrial or (on appeal) to a review amounting to a retrial.
(6) If the judge decides the question in subsection (5) in the affirmative he must proceed under section 21.
(7) If the judge decides that question in the negative he must order the person's discharge.
(8) The judge must not decide the question in subsection (5) in the affirmative unless, in any proceedings that it is alleged would constitute a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial, the person would have these rights—
(a) the right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he had not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so required;
(b) the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him."
It is agreed that s20(3) would only be satisfied if the person realised that in deliberately absenting himself he ran the risk that he would be tried in his absence.
It is further agreed that the entitlement to "a retrial or (on appeal) to a review amounting to a retrial" (s20(5)) would only be effective if he was made aware of his conviction in sufficient time to allow him to take steps to appeal or seek a retrial within any time limit set for making such an application.