Atkinson, R. v

A court may permit a defendant to change a guilty plea before sentence, but it must exercise that discretion judicially. A guilty plea gives rise to a nullity only where the facts strongly establish that it was not a true acknowledgement of guilt. A qualified reference to self-defence does not itself make a plea equivocal where the defendant, with legal representation, confirms guilt and the qualification is compatible with an acceptance that force was unnecessary or unreasonable.

An appellate court will go behind a voluntary guilty plea only exceptionally. It must be satisfied that a real injustice has occurred, ordinarily because the omitted defence would quite probably have succeeded. A self-defence claim requires an honest belief that force was necessary and force reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Isleworth Crown Court to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, two assaults by beating, and criminal damage. The offences arose while she was a detained hospital patient. The prosecution case was that, after medication had been administered, she behaved violently, damaged property and assaulted members of staff.

During arraignment, she referred repeatedly to self-defence while entering guilty pleas. Her counsel confirmed that, after speaking with her, he was professionally satisfied that the pleas were proper. The trial judge later refused her application to vacate them and imposed a community order.

On appeal, the appellant contended that the pleas were ambiguous or a nullity. Alternatively, she submitted that they should have been vacated because self-defence had real prospects of success.

1. Appeal dismissed. The guilty pleas were neither ambiguous nor equivocal in their context, and the convictions were safe.

2. The nullity jurisdiction is limited. A guilty plea will make proceedings a nullity only where the facts strongly show that it was not a true acknowledgement of guilt, including where erroneous advice went to the heart of the plea and deprived it of its voluntary character. The appellant’s references to self-defence were not ignored: the judge sought clarification and counsel, having spent substantial time with her, confirmed that the pleas were proper.

3. This case was materially different from R v Ingleson [1915] 1 KB 512. The appellant was represented and did not give a complete account inconsistent with guilt. Her simultaneous assertions of self-defence and guilt could reflect acceptance that force was unnecessary or excessive. Her fitness-to-plead assessment, her understanding of the charges, and her later acknowledgement that her violence was unjustified reinforced that conclusion.

4. Under Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 2(1), an appeal following a guilty plea will succeed only exceptionally where a clear injustice is established. The court rejected the submission that the appellant had been deprived of a defence likely to succeed. Even using the lower formulation of whether self-defence had a reasonable prospect of success, the defence failed on the available material.

5. Self-defence required an honest belief that force was necessary and force reasonable in the circumstances. The evidence showed no unlawful assault or pursuit by staff. Staff intervened only when the appellant was self-harming, were entitled and obliged to restrain her, and the CCTV and other evidence showed violent resistance, biting and punching. The trial judge therefore correctly refused to vacate the pleas. No injustice was shown.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against conviction dismissed.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: on 2 January 2020 the appellant pleaded guilty to four counts. On 21 February 2020 the court refused her application to vacate the pleas and imposed a 24-month community order with rehabilitation activity and mental-health treatment requirements.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: the appellant initially entered not-guilty pleas, and the case was sent to the Crown Court for trial.