Walton (aka Wright), R v

Where reliable fresh expert evidence establishes that an accused person lacked the understanding needed to participate effectively in proceedings and give instructions when guilty pleas were entered, the convictions are unsafe. The Court of Appeal may receive that evidence under the Criminal Appeal Act, quash the convictions, and substitute findings that the accused was under a disability and did the acts charged.

An absolute discharge may be appropriate where extant and effective hospital and restriction orders under the Mental Health Act 1983 already provide the necessary protective disposal.

The appellant had pleaded guilty at Norwich Crown Court in March and April 2008 to offences including possessing bladed articles and failing to surrender to bail. He was sentenced, including following revocation of earlier community and conditional-discharge orders.

Later psychological and psychiatric reports, obtained in separate proceedings concerning a sexual offence, described profound learning difficulties and very limited intellectual functioning. Leicester Crown Court permitted the appellant to vacate his plea in those proceedings, found him unfit to plead, and made hospital and restriction orders.

On an unopposed appeal against the 2008 convictions, the central issue was whether the fresh expert evidence showed that the appellant had also been unfit to plead when those earlier pleas were entered.

1. Appeal allowed. The court received the fresh psychological and psychiatric evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act. The reports had not been available to Norwich Crown Court and were accepted by the Crown.

2. The evidence demonstrated that, at the relevant times in 2008, the appellant lacked the understanding required to follow and participate in the proceedings and to give instructions. His very low intellectual functioning, severe learning difficulty, cognitive impairments and inability to understand the significance of guilty and not-guilty pleas established that he could not have been fit to plead.

3. The convictions were therefore quashed. Exercising the power in section 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, the court substituted findings that the appellant was under a disability and that he did the acts charged.

4. The court made an absolute discharge in respect of the 2008 offences. That course was appropriate because the hospital order under section 37 and restriction order under section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983, made in the separate proceedings, remained extant and effective.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal, quashed the 2008 convictions, substituted findings of disability and of doing the acts charged, and ordered an absolute discharge.

• Norwich Crown Court: The appellant pleaded guilty to bladed-article offences on 28 March 2008. On 17 April 2008 he pleaded guilty to failing to surrender to bail and was sentenced and, where applicable, re-sentenced to terms totalling 12 months' detention.