Rymer v Director of Public Prosecutions

Where a magistrates’ court accepts a written guilty plea under Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, records a conviction and adjourns sentence, the defendant has no automatic right to change the plea to not guilty at the adjourned hearing. Section 12(9) applies where the court declines to act on the written plea and adjourns the case, but not after conviction on that plea. A defendant may nevertheless seek permission to withdraw a guilty plea under the applicable procedural principles. The use of an unprescribed form does not invalidate a postal conviction if the notice adequately states the effect of section 12. The appeal was dismissed.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from justices sitting at Crewe. The appellant had received a postal requisition for summary driving offences, pleaded guilty by post, and was convicted in his absence. The magistrates then adjourned the case to consider disqualification from driving. At the adjourned hearing, the appellant sought to plead not guilty. The magistrates held that he had no automatic right to do so and declined to permit the change. The issues were the effect of section 12(9) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and whether the use of Forms 27A and 28A invalidated the conviction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that a defendant who has pleaded guilty by post, been convicted in his absence and had sentence adjourned has no automatic right to plead not guilty at the adjourned hearing.
2. Section 12(5) permits the magistrates to hear and dispose of the case in the defendant’s absence as if he had appeared and pleaded guilty. The references in sections 12(10), 10(3), 11(4) and 12(8) to adjournment, resumption, conviction and sentencing are consistent with the conviction having already occurred.
3. Section 12(6) also indicates that withdrawal of the written plea must take place before the section 12 hearing. Section 12(9) was not intended to reverse the effect of an accepted guilty plea and conviction. It applies where the court declines to proceed under section 12(5) and adjourns the case for a further hearing.
4. The word “dispose” in section 12(5) means to finish the case, including sentencing. The court rejected the submission that it meant merely to convict. The word “trial” in section 12(9) did not resolve the issue.
5. The use of Forms 27A and 28A did not invalidate the conviction. Although they were no longer prescribed forms, they contained an adequate statement of the effect of section 12. The statutory requirement concerns the content of the notice. Even in a summons case, failure to use the prescribed form would be unlikely to invalidate a conviction where the notice was sufficient.
6. On resumption, the magistrates were directed to give the appellant a fresh opportunity to apply to withdraw his pleas under the established principles and Criminal Procedure Rules 2010, rule 37.9.

• Magistrates’ Court at Crewe: convicted the appellant following acceptance of his guilty plea by post, adjourned sentence to consider disqualification, and held that he had no automatic right to change his plea.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and upheld the magistrates’ interpretation.