Director of Public Prosecutions v Toney

A guilty plea should be vacated only where the evidence shows that it was not a true, properly advised acknowledgement of guilt. Relevant circumstances may include misunderstanding the nature of the offence or improper pressure affecting the plea. A material difference between the defendant’s account and the prosecution case does not, without more, establish that the plea was invalid. The court must assess the defendant’s admissions in context and on the evidence properly available to it.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated against the decision of a Crown Court judge to allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea to an offence under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The plea had been entered in the magistrates’ court after legal advice. The defendant later asserted that he had intended to admit only an accidental cause of injury and relied on the victim’s withdrawal of her complaint.

The Crown Court judge considered that the admissions recorded by defence counsel were materially different from the prosecution allegation and that he could not be sure that the defendant had truly admitted guilt. The central issue was whether that difference justified vacating the plea.

1. Appeal allowed. The question in the case stated was answered in the negative. The matter was remitted to the Crown Court with a direction to proceed to sentence, preferably before a different judge.

2. The relevant question was whether the defendant admitted guilt of the offence charged. It was not whether his account was radically different from the prosecution allegation. The judge below therefore applied the wrong legal approach.

3. The discretion to allow withdrawal of an unequivocal guilty plea should be exercised only rarely, particularly where the defendant has received advice from experienced lawyers: R v Drew [1985] 1 WLR 914. The present case did not involve an earlier change of plea, but the principle remained relevant.

4. A plea may properly be vacated where evidence shows that the defendant did not understand the nature of the offence or was subjected to improper pressure which caused him to plead guilty when he otherwise would not have done so. The available note showed no misunderstanding about the nature of assault. Read in context, it recorded an admission of an assault and did not support an accidental explanation.

5. The court adopted the approach stated in R v Saik [2004] EWCA Crim 2936, that the evidence must be sufficiently strong to show that the plea was not a true acknowledgement of guilt and that erroneous advice must go to the heart of the plea. The absence of any reference to a possible Newton hearing did not alter the conclusion. The defendant had not waived privilege, so the original counsel could not properly be required to give further evidence to explain her note.

6. There was no order for costs in the appeal. The defendant was left free to apply to the Crown Court for the costs of the earlier hearing.

• Crown Court at Wood Green: on 7 February 2005, allowed the defendant’s application to vacate his guilty plea.
• High Court (Administrative Court): on appeal by way of case stated, allowed the prosecution appeal and remitted the matter to the Crown Court with a direction to proceed to sentence.