  |
Two defendants in major drugs case abscond to Morocco
|
by PANORAMA reporter:Two defendants in a major drugs case have absconded to Morocco, but acting Chief Justice Anthony Dudley ruled yesterday that the case will go on.
Three men had been charged with involvement in a plot to smuggle half-a-ton of cannabis resin from Morocco. The men were allegedly acting as spotters from a vantage point on the Upper Rock while other members of the group transported the cannabis across the Strait of Gibraltar.
Joseph Bebeagua, Dylan Lara and Manuel Hernandez had denied the charges of possession, importation and conspiracy to import the drugs.
As the case resumed yesterday, it was established that Bebeagua and Lara had absconded to Morocco. This being the case, Judge Dudley had to decide on the fate of the case.
"There is a public interest that the trial should conclude, given that the evidence has been tendered and also because there is still one defendant before me and it would be undesirable for there to be a new separate trial in the future," he said.
And he added at the end of a statement: I shall deal with both defendants in their absence.
IN FULL the ruling made yesterday by Acting Chief Justice Dudley:
The position as regards dealing with defendants in their absence has changed from that which prevailed in the 1969 Constitution and that which applies now. Therefore, pursuant to section 8 of the present Constitution, unlike the 1969 Constitution, a trial can take place in a defendant's absence "as may be prescribed by law". And that of course includes the common law.
The House of Lords decision of R v Jones (Anthony) 2003 1 ACl is authority for the proposition that a judge has a discretion to continue a trial in a defendant's absence, albeit one to be exercised with great caution and with close regard to the fairness of the proceedings. Reference to that is to be found at Archbold at 3-197.
The matters which this Court is enjoined to take account of were dealt with in that case. Without dealing with these sequentially I highlight what I think is relevant in the present case:-
1. The defendants have absconded themselves voluntarily arid therefore have waived the right to be present.
2. An adjournment will not resolve the matter because there appears to be no immediate intention to return to the jurisdiction and the defendants cannot remain in the charge of the jury indefinitely.
3. The defendants are not disadvantaged in the trial process because all that is left is for me to sum up and of course I shall direct the jury to disregard the fact that they have absconded in a robust manner to avoid them drawing any improper conclusion,
4. There is a public interest that the trial should conclude, particularly given that all the evidence has been tendered and also because there is still one defendant before me and it would be undesirable for there to be a new separate trial in the future.
For those reasons, I shall deal with both defendants in their absence.
20-01-10
|
|
|
|
