Absconding meaning

In this issue: Trusts Court of Protection UK taxation for Private Client Updates to HMRC Manuals Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Regulatory compliance for Private Client Budgets and Finance Bills Family enterprises and ownership frameworks Disputed trusts and estates Pensions, insurance and tax-efficient investments Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland International Question of the week Additional Private Client updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information Trusts HMCTS issues guidance on applications to recover funds paid into the High Court, Chancery Division HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has issued guidance on making applications to recover money held by the High Court (Chancery Division). Released on 18 December 2025, the guidance covers three situations: surpluses from property repossessions when entitled parties cannot...

R (on the application of Allen) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 2370 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? Allen is among only three rulings on the 2023 policy now in force—the ‘Generic Parole Process Policy Framework 2023’ (‘GPPPF’) at 5.83—and offers clear guidance on its proper application. The third, concluding factor, the ‘wholly persuasive case’ requirement, is approached as a proof-like threshold: at §54 the question posed is whether the case is ‘wholly persuasive’, as distinct from merely ‘moderately persuasive’. That determination rests with the Secretary of State for Justice and sits beyond the Parole Board’s remit. The suggested method is therefore: having addressed the first two criteria (whether adequate progress has been achieved and the risk of absconding), the Secretary of State should take a step back to judge if, taken as a whole, the matter reaches the ‘wholly persuasive case’ standard. The case also notably examines the correct procedure to follow where a ‘transitional mismatch’ is encountered...

At a London High Court hearing, Martin Evans KC of 33 Chancery Lane, acting for the Director of Public Prosecutions, confirmed the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) plans a UK programme to assist Chinese victims deceived by convicted fraudster Zhimin Qian. No further information about the scheme was available at once. Further particulars of the planned support have not been released, and the CPS maintains its position pending the court’s approach to victim redress within these proceedings. In written arguments, Evans added the CPS was not, for now, pursuing a civil recovery order, awaiting the court’s guidance on addressing victims’ interests. The CPS has moved to confiscate roughly 61,000 bitcoins—valued at around £5.1bn today—frozen in the UK’s biggest cryptocurrency case to date. In September 2025, at the outset of a London criminal trial, Qian, 47, also called Yadi Zhang, admitted possessing and transferring criminal property. Prosecutors allege she cheated 128,000 investors in China between 2014 and 2017, later turning the takings into cryptocurrency before absconding. Sentencing is listed at Southwark Crown...

Conditions of bail This Practice Note sets out when bail may carry conditions and summarises typical measures, including securities and sureties. For guidance on breaches, see Practice Note: Absconding and breach of bail conditions in criminal court proceedings. A defendant granted bail by the court may have to observe conditions both prior to and following release. The Bail Act 1976 (BA 1976) identifies some potential conditions, but the list is not comprehensive. See also: Court bail application—checklist. No condition should be attached unless the court deems it necessary to ensure the defendant: appears at court does not commit offences whilst on bail does not interfere with witnesses or impede the course of justice co-operates with preparation of pre-sentence reports attends meetings with their legal representatives Commonly imposed conditions include: Before release: surrender of passport or other travel documents to the police provision of a security or sureties After release: ...

In both the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court, going ahead with a trial when the defendant is not present is a measure of last resort, one the courts seek to avoid unless it is truly required. In R v Jones, the House of Lords confirmed that any choice to proceed in a defendant’s absence must be approached with exceptional caution and with careful attention to the fairness of the hearing; a defendant who cannot attend because of involuntary illness or incapacity has far stronger grounds to oppose the trial continuing than someone who has deliberately absented themselves by absconding. Running a trial without the defendant can create prejudice not only for the missing accused but also for any co‑defendants, and it may lead to confusion for a jury, undermining clarity and fairness in the process...