Clarke, R v

An indictment may be amended under section 5(1) of the Indictment Act 1915 at any stage before or during trial. Where correction requires it, the court may permit an accused to vacate guilty pleas, amend the indictment and enter fresh pleas. That procedure is not an abuse of process where it causes no unfairness.

An unsigned indictment is not a nullity if the statutory requirements governing its validity have been met. A challenge based on duplicity or insufficient particulars is unarguable where the accused's admissions and the course of proceedings show that the allegations were understood.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Lincoln Crown Court to sexual offences against one complainant. After the prosecution considered the sufficiency of the initial pleas, it identified errors in dates and statutory references in the indictment.

The Recorder allowed the applicant to vacate his original pleas, amended the indictment, and re-arraigned him. The applicant then pleaded guilty to every count on the amended indictment. He received a special custodial sentence.

Some 721 days later, he sought an extension of time to apply for permission to appeal his convictions. He contended that the amendment procedure was an abuse of process, that the indictment was unsigned and invalid, and that it was duplicitous or insufficiently particular.

1. The court refused the renewed application for a 721-day extension of time. The applicant's explanation, based on erroneous advice from fresh solicitors and subsequent difficulties obtaining documents, did not justify the delay in a limited and wholly unmeritorious proposed appeal.

2. In any event, the court would have refused permission to appeal. Section 5(1) of the Indictment Act 1915 permits amendment of an indictment at any stage before or during trial. It was therefore permissible to allow the applicant to vacate his original pleas, amend the indictment to correct dates and statutory provisions, and take fresh pleas.

3. The procedure caused no unfairness and was not an abuse of process. The court treated R v Love and Hyde [2013] 2 Cr App R 4 as confirming that a plea may be vacated so that an indictment can be amended, even where the amendment affects the maximum sentence.

4. Applying R v MJ [2018] EWCA Crim 2485, the court held that the statutory amendment described there had abrogated the former rule that an unsigned indictment was a nullity. The indictment was valid because the requirements of section 2 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1933 had been met.

5. The applicant's detailed admissions and the subsequent conduct of the Crown Court proceedings left no arguable basis for alleging duplicity or inadequate particulars. A 28-day loss of time order was made.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the renewed application for an extension of time and held that permission to appeal conviction would in any event have been refused: [2020] EWCA Crim 1190.

• Crown Court: The applicant vacated his initial pleas after the indictment was amended, then pleaded guilty to all counts on the amended indictment. He was sentenced on 22 June 2017.