Golrokhi, R (On the Application Of) v Chelmsford Crown Court

A guilty plea is ordinarily treated as knowingly and willingly entered. An inconsistency between the plea and material in a police interview does not, without more, make the plea equivocal. The magistrates must have been given some basis for considering a change of plea, and their failure to do so must be shown to involve an incorrect exercise of discretion.

A later challenge based on alleged erroneous legal advice is exceptional. It requires the advice to go to the heart of the plea, so that the plea was not a true or free admission of guilt, or the defendant would probably have been acquitted and a clear injustice would otherwise result. A judicial review court will not entertain a nullity argument that was not raised before the Crown Court.

The claimant pleaded guilty at Harlow Magistrates’ Court to an offence under section 2(1) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004. She was sentenced at Chelmsford Crown Court and later sought to appeal against conviction.

The Crown Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that section 108(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 permits an appeal against conviction only where the defendant pleaded not guilty. The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that her plea was equivocal because the case summary disclosed possible defences, or alternatively that the plea was a nullity because it followed erroneous advice.

1. Claim dismissed. The Crown Court was entitled to decline jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against conviction following the claimant’s guilty plea.

2. The court applied the three questions identified in P (Foster) Haulage v Roberts, 67 Cr. App. R. 305: whether the plea was equivocal; whether something occurred in the proceedings which made it clear that the magistrates should consider permitting a change of plea; and whether the magistrates wrongly exercised their discretion by failing to invite such a change.

3. The plea was not shown to be equivocal. The magistrates were entitled to proceed on the basis that a guilty plea was entered knowingly and willingly, absent evidence to the contrary. The prosecution had no duty to open the interview summary to the magistrates. The fact that a defendant has said something inconsistent with a guilty plea in an interview is insufficient by itself to establish equivocality or a wrongful exercise of discretion.

4. The nullity argument was not raised before the Crown Court and therefore could not impugn its decision. In any event, the applicable threshold was exceptional. Under R v Boal, (1992) 95 Cr. App. R. 272, intervention requires a probable acquittal and a clear injustice. The approach stated in R v Saik, [2004] EWCA Crim 2936, and approved and followed in R v Evans, 2009 EWCA Crim 2243, required erroneous advice going to the heart of the plea, so that the guilty plea was not a true or free admission of guilt.

5. The evidence did not reach that threshold. Whether the potential statutory defences would succeed depended on matters including the claimant’s credibility, and the court had not heard her give evidence. The court noted that the Criminal Cases Review Commission applied a lower threshold, but made no finding that the claimant’s case met the threshold for judicial intervention.

The judgment describes an appeal from Harlow Magistrates’ Court to Chelmsford Crown Court. The Crown Court dismissed the appeal on 7 September 2012, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against conviction following a guilty plea. The High Court dismissed the claim for judicial review and held that the Crown Court was correct to decline jurisdiction.