Wilson v Crown Prosecution Service

The discretion under Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, section 142, to vacate an unequivocal guilty plea must be exercised judicially and sparingly. Relief may be appropriate where the plea resulted from a material mistake, improper pressure or incorrect legal advice about a possible defence. Representation, the defendant’s understanding, the need for finality and the interests of justice are relevant. On appeal, the appellant must show that the magistrates misdirected themselves, failed to consider a material matter or exercised their discretion unreasonably. A later discharge of a criminal behaviour order, and the possible availability of a reasonable-excuse defence, do not by themselves establish that an earlier guilty plea was wrongly entered.

Karl Wilson appealed by way of case stated against the refusal of South Tameside Magistrates’ Court to reopen convictions and permit him to vacate guilty pleas to breaches of a criminal behaviour order. He had been represented when the pleas were entered, but later evidence suggested cognitive and mental-health difficulties and led to the discharge of the order. The central issues were whether a material mistake had affected the pleas, whether reopening was in the interests of justice under section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, and whether an extension of time for the appeal should be granted.

1. The court refused an extension of time for filing the appeal. Although the delay arose from a solicitor’s mistake and no actual prejudice was shown, the merits of the appeal were relevant and the application would not be meritorious if the magistrates had correctly refused to vacate the pleas.
2. Under section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, the magistrates’ discretion to vary or rescind an order, including by reopening a conviction in the interests of justice, must be exercised judicially. An unequivocal guilty plea ordinarily proves guilt according to law, but withdrawal may be permitted in a clear case involving a material mistake, lack of understanding, improper pressure or incorrect legal advice as to a possible defence.
3. The jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly. Legal representation is relevant, and the responsibility for the plea remains that of the defendant, although counsel must assist the defendant in deciding how to plead. Finality, certainty and the interests of the defendant, court and public must all be considered.
4. On an appeal against the exercise of that discretion, it must be shown that the magistrates misdirected themselves in law, failed to take account of a matter to which they should have had regard, or acted unreasonably.
5. The later discharge of the criminal behaviour order did not establish that Wilson lacked capacity to plead guilty or that his pleas were entered by mistake. The evidence showed that he knew of the prohibition on begging and had received appropriate advice on the available material. The possible availability of a reasonable-excuse defence was insufficient to demonstrate a material mistake.
6. The magistrates were entitled to refuse relief. The extension of time was refused and the appeal was dismissed.

• South Tameside Magistrates’ Court: refused to reopen the convictions or permit the guilty pleas to be vacated.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division), Divisional Court: refused an extension of time and dismissed the appeal.