Pownall & Rodber, R (on the application of) v Flintshire Magistrates Court

A conviction entered on a guilty plea may be quashed by judicial review where the plea was based on a fundamental and common error about the legal elements of the offence. This is so even where the magistrates’ court acted fairly and neither the prosecution nor the police acted dishonestly. The relevant question is whether the process leading to conviction was materially corrupted by misinformation which deprived the defendant of a proper opportunity to decide whether to plead guilty and wrongly denied a complete defence.

The claimants had pleaded guilty before the defendant magistrates’ court to exceeding a 30 mph limit. It was later established that the necessary traffic order had not been made, so the applicable limit was 60 mph and neither claimant had committed the charged offence. The police acknowledged the error and the convictions were withdrawn administratively, but no appeal lay to the Crown Court because the convictions followed guilty pleas. The claimants therefore sought judicial review and quashing orders.

1. Convictions quashed. The court accepted that both claimants had convictions for offences they had not committed and ordered that the convictions be quashed.
2. The absence of unfairness by the magistrates and the absence of malpractice or dishonesty by the police did not prevent judicial review. The cases fell within the principles in R v Bolton justices ex parte Scally, [1991] 2 All ER 619.
3. The claimants had relied on the police assertion that the road was subject to a 30 mph limit. The proceedings consequently proceeded on a false premise. That misinformation deprived them of a proper opportunity to choose between a guilty and not guilty plea and wrongly denied them a complete defence.
4. Because the convictions followed guilty pleas, no appeal was available under section 142 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980. Judicial review was therefore the available remedy.
5. The North Wales police were ordered to pay the claimants’ reasonable costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

Not stated in the judgment.