R v Geordan Anthony Rees

A guilty plea is not unsafe merely because the defendant faced pressure. Ordinary pressure from plea credit, family co-defendants or a prosecution arrangement affecting a relative may be legitimate. The question is whether the overall circumstances created impermissible pressure.

Where no Goodyear application is requested, a judge should not give a sentencing indication under that procedure. Outside it, the proper indication is that any sentence following conviction will be non-custodial, regardless of whether conviction follows a plea or trial. Sentence discussions should occur in the defendant’s presence and indications must be clear. An informal indication suggesting that custody is avoided only by pleading guilty may render convictions unsafe.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Swansea to three offences arising from a violent incident. He received a suspended sentence with an unpaid work requirement. The prosecution offered no evidence on the remaining counts against him and on the charge against his father.

On the morning listed for trial, the judge discussed sentence with counsel in the defendants’ absence and indicated, indirectly, that the appellant would receive a non-custodial sentence. Counsel advised that imprisonment remained a risk after trial but would not follow the proposed guilty pleas. The central issues were whether the pleas resulted from impermissible pressure and, if the convictions were unsafe, whether a retrial should be ordered.

Appeal allowed. The convictions were quashed and no retrial was ordered.

1. The existence of pressure does not by itself make a guilty plea unsafe. Plea credit, the position of a jointly accused family member and a prosecution offer affecting a co-accused may occur legitimately. The defendant’s own interests must remain at the forefront of the decision.
2. The Goodyear procedure was not followed. Under the Criminal Procedure Rules 3.31 and Criminal Practice Direction 7 Part C, it was wrong for the judge to initiate a sentencing indication without a request from or on behalf of the defendant. Outside that procedure, the only proper indication was the type identified in R v Turner [1970] 54 Cr App R 72: on conviction, the sentence would be non-custodial regardless of the plea.
3. The judge’s repeated inquiry about the appellant’s fitness conveyed that unpaid work, and therefore no immediate custody, would be imposed. Although the language was opaque, its legal effect was not conditional on a guilty plea. Counsel did not communicate that position. The appellant instead understood that trial conviction carried a risk of immediate imprisonment while the proposed pleas avoided that risk.
4. That mismatch created impermissible pressure. The judge’s sentencing indication, rather than the position of the appellant’s father alone, rendered the convictions unsafe. Sentence discussions should take place in the defendant’s presence and indications should be clear and unambiguous. The principal responsibility rested on the judge, but both defence and prosecution counsel also had responsibilities to ensure lawful procedure.
5. Although the incident was serious, the interests of justice did not require a retrial. The court took account of the passage of nearly three years, completion of the unpaid work and expiry of the suspended sentence, together with the prosecution’s responsibility for not objecting to the process.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 487, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and declined to order a retrial.
• Crown Court at Swansea: On 6 April 2021, the appellant entered guilty pleas to three counts and received a 12-month suspended sentence with an unpaid work requirement of 180 hours.