Kumar v R

Pravin Kumar was convicted by the High Court of charges of sexual offending involving two complainants. Kumar had absconded prior to the start of the trial and the trial proceeded in his absence. Kumar appealed against his conviction and sentence on the basis that the trial judge should not have proceeded to trial in his absence and that this resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Kumar argued that the trial judge should have granted an adjournment in order to locate him and that his absence led to a significant disadvantage in the presentation of his defence. The Court of Appeal allowed Kumar's appeal, quashed his conviction and sentence and ordered a retrial. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge should have adjourned the trial to enable the police to locate Kumar. Kumar's absence led to significant difficulties for his defence counsel in presenting his defence. The Court of Appeal noted that Kumar's absence was not deliberate and that he had a mistaken belief that an adjournment would result from his non-appearance. The Court of Appeal found that the seriousness of the charges against Kumar and the impact on the complainants in a retrial were relevant factors but that an adjournment should have been granted.