Love & Anor, R. v

An indictment may be amended after a guilty plea under section 5(1) of the Indictments Act 1915. A trial is not complete merely because a plea has been entered; it continues until sentence.

A conviction is not unsafe where an amendment corrects an uncontroversial description of the offence, causes no unfairness, and the defendant then unequivocally pleads guilty to the amended count. Any issue over the means by which the original plea was vacated is immaterial if the same result could lawfully have been achieved by allowing that plea to stand to the amended indictment.

The applicants pleaded guilty at Isleworth Crown Court to burglary. The original indictment alleged entry into a building as trespassers with intent to steal, but did not describe the building as a dwelling. Following the pleas, the prosecution applied to amend the particulars to describe it as a dwelling.

The judge permitted the amendment, vacated the original pleas, re-arraigned the applicants, and accepted fresh guilty pleas. The applicants challenged the safety of their convictions, contending that the court lacked power to vacate the pleas without a defence application. Love also challenged his sentence as excessive on the footing that the burglary should have been placed in a lower sentencing category.

1. The court refused the applications concerning conviction, and refused Love's renewed application concerning sentence.

2. Section 5(1) of the Indictments Act 1915 empowered the judge to permit amendment after the applicants had pleaded guilty. A plea did not end the trial. The power to amend remained available until sentence. The amendment accurately reflected the position understood and accepted by everyone: the premises were a dwelling. It caused no injustice.

3. The court found no authority for the proposition that a judge could vacate a guilty plea only on a defendant's application under rule 39.3 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. It considered that the court must have power to do so where justice requires it. That issue was, however, unnecessary to decide. The judge could instead have allowed the original pleas to stand as pleas to the amended indictment unless the applicants chose to withdraw them. By entering fresh guilty pleas, the applicants reached substantively the same position.

4. There was no unfairness and no basis for doubting the safety of the convictions. The applicants unequivocally admitted the offence as particularised in the amended indictment.

5. Love's burglary was properly treated as Category 2. Forced entry into the dwelling and his antecedents entitled the judge to adopt a 15-month starting point. The resulting 10-month sentence, after full credit for plea, was not arguably excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Refused the applications challenging the convictions and refused Love's renewed application challenging sentence.

2. Crown Court at Isleworth On 30 August 2012, permitted amendment of the burglary indictment, accepted fresh guilty pleas, and imposed sentences on both applicants.