Williamson, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court & Ors

Section 142(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 is a limited power to correct mistakes or errors. It is not equivalent to an appeal or a general power of review, and cannot ordinarily be used to obtain a retrial because a defendant’s solicitor allegedly gave incompetent or misleading advice before an unequivocal guilty plea. Such allegations require a procedure capable of testing the evidence and obtaining the former lawyer’s account. Exceptional cases may fall within section 142(2), including convictions for offences unknown to law, cases affected by jurisdictional bars, proceedings which were a nullity, or later circumstances in which the prosecution accepts that a conviction should not stand. Judicial review may intervene where prosecutorial misconduct corrupts the process leading to conviction, but the alleged misconduct of a defendant’s own legal adviser is materially different.

The claimant pleaded guilty before the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court to assault and being drunk and disorderly. He later applied under section 142(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 for the convictions to be set aside and the case remitted for rehearing. He alleged that his solicitor had misrepresented the strength of the prosecution case, including the existence of witnesses and the solicitor’s inability to view CCTV footage.

The magistrates’ court accepted that it had power to remit the case but refused the application. The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that section 142(2) did not apply, or alternatively that the refusal was irrational and inadequately reasoned. The central issues were the scope of section 142(2) and whether the alleged solicitor misconduct justified judicial intervention or a rehearing.

1. Claim dismissed. The magistrates’ court had no power under section 142(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to remit this conviction for rehearing on the basis alleged.
2. Section 142 was introduced to enable magistrates’ courts to correct mistakes and errors and avoid unnecessary appellate or review proceedings. The amended provision removed the 28-day limit and restrictions relating to the plea, but did not convert the power into an appeal or general review jurisdiction. A broad interpretation would undermine appeals by way of case stated and confer on magistrates powers equivalent to those of the High Court.
3. The power may exceptionally apply despite an unequivocal guilty plea. Examples include a plea to an offence unknown to law, an unappreciated jurisdictional bar, proceedings which were a nullity, or later circumstances in which the prosecution accepts that the conviction should not be sustained.
4. The claimant’s case concerned an alleged misapprehension of the strength of the evidence caused by flawed advice from his own solicitor. Even if established, that was not a mistake within section 142(2). It was an attempt to use the provision as a substitute for an appeal based on the conduct of legal advisers. The careful procedure identified in R v Doherty; R v McGregor [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. 218, including disclosure of the allegations and the lawyer’s response, was necessary before such allegations could properly be determined.
5. R v Bolton Justice, ex parte Scally [1991] 1 Q.B. 537 did not assist. That case involved undisputed prosecutorial circumstances which had invalidated the evidential process. Conduct by a defendant’s own legal adviser was not analogous to prosecutorial fraud, collusion or perjury. The claimant’s challenge was therefore outside the relevant principle.
6. As the jurisdiction point was decisive, the challenges to the magistrates’ reasons and exercise of discretion were academic. The court noted that other mechanisms might exist for challenging a guilty plea, but expressed no view on their prospects and did not encourage further litigation.

Not an appeal. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court dated 1 July 2011 refusing to remit the convictions for rehearing.