Revitt & Ors v Director of Public Prosecutions

An unequivocal guilty plea accepted by the court proves the defendant guilty according to law for the purposes of Article 6(2) of the Convention. The presumption of innocence then ceases to apply. A plea may be withdrawn where justice requires it, particularly if the defendant did not understand the elements of the offence or the prosecution facts do not amount to the offence charged. The burden lies on the applicant to show that withdrawal is justified. The discretion must be exercised cautiously, but the court’s duty to clear the innocent is at least as important as its duty to convict and punish the guilty. The court must ensure that an unrepresented defendant understands the nature of the charge before accepting a guilty plea.

Three young defendants appealed by way of case stated against the refusal of the Central and South West Staffordshire Justices to permit withdrawal of guilty pleas to dangerous driving charges. They had initially been arrested in connection with an alleged public nuisance, but were later charged with dangerous driving and several vehicle-related offences. They pleaded guilty while unrepresented after the charges, disclosure rights, legal representation and possible custody had been explained. Solicitors later asserted that the defendants had misunderstood the charge and wished to contest whether the facts supported dangerous driving.

The central issues were whether the guilty-plea procedure was compatible with Article 6 of the Convention and whether the Justices had erred in refusing withdrawal of the pleas.

1. Appeal dismissed. The question posed by the Justices was answered in the affirmative. The appellants had not shown that justice required their guilty pleas to be vacated.
2. Where a defendant makes an unequivocal guilty plea which the court accepts, the defendant is proved guilty according to law for the purposes of Article 6(2) of the Convention. The court may sentence on that basis. An equivocal plea must instead be treated as a plea of not guilty.
3. The discretion to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea must be exercised cautiously. It is likely to be appropriate to allow withdrawal where the defendant did not appreciate the elements of the offence. It will also normally be appropriate where the prosecution facts do not amount to the offence charged. The applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that justice requires withdrawal.
4. The Justices were entitled to reject the assertion that the appellants believed they were pleading guilty to public nuisance. The appellants had signed charge sheets containing four separate offences, none referring to nuisance. The charges had been explained, and dangerous driving had been identified as serious and potentially punishable by custody.
5. There was no evidential basis for concluding that the appellants had failed to understand the nature of dangerous driving. Section 9 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 required the substance of the information to be stated to them, and the case stated provided no reason to believe that this had not occurred.
6. The court also found no basis for concluding that the facts did not amount to dangerous driving. Riding motorcycles along a footpath at dusk and at some speed was not an open-and-shut case, but the available material gave no reason to doubt the realism of the guilty pleas. The safeguards offered before the pleas were adequate, including disclosure, an adjournment for representation and advice about legal assistance and custody.

1. Central and South West Staffordshire Justices, Cannock Magistrates’ Court: refused applications to withdraw guilty pleas to dangerous driving on 23 March 2006 and sentenced each appellant to four months’ detention and 12 months’ disqualification.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated dismissed; the Justices’ decision was affirmed in substance.