ZOE PHILLIPS v ISLEWORTH CROWN COURT

On an appeal by way of case stated, the High Court’s task is confined to answering the legal question posed, subject to examining the material evidence where irrationality is alleged. A guilty plea may be vacated if it was equivocal or if improper pressure from legal representatives removed the defendant’s free choice. Firm, unwelcome and realistic advice does not by itself amount to improper pressure. An equivocal plea requires more than a change of mind or the emergence of new facts. The Crown Court must conduct a proper inquiry, including obtaining an account of what occurred at the original hearing where that issue is raised. On factual challenges, the High Court may intervene only where the decision was based on no evidence or was perverse.

The appellant appealed by way of case stated from the decision of the Isleworth Crown Court, which refused her application to vacate guilty pleas entered before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 2 July 2020 to two harassment offences. The Crown Court found that the pleas were not equivocal and had not resulted from improper pressure by her solicitor and barrister.

The appellant challenged the Crown Court’s procedure, its assessment of what she had said when re-arraigned, its findings concerning legal advice and pressure, and the alleged failure to account for a possible defence. The central questions were whether the Crown Court had applied the correct law and whether its factual conclusions were legally challengeable on a case stated appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. Scope of the appeal. The case stated procedure confined the Divisional Court to the legal question posed and to the evidence before the Crown Court. A factual conclusion could be challenged only if based on no evidence or if perverse. It was not perverse for the Crown Court to prefer one witness’s evidence over another’s.
2. Equivocal pleas. The Crown Court had to conduct a proper inquiry and have sufficient evidence to determine whether the plea was equivocal. The appellant had to produce prima facie credible evidence. The court should obtain an account from the magistrates’ court, ordinarily by affidavit, although other evidence could be used if an affidavit was unavailable. An equivocal plea involved a qualification of the admission of guilt. A mere change of mind or the emergence of new facts was insufficient. If the plea was equivocal, the case could be remitted for rehearing. These principles were drawn from R v Plymouth Justices, ex parte Hart, R v Rochdale Justices, ex parte Allwork and R v Tottenham Justices, ex parte Rubens.
3. Improper pressure. Legal representatives had a professional duty to give clear, robust and realistic advice, including advice about the strength of the prosecution case and sentencing consequences. The relevant question was whether the advice was so forceful as to remove the defendant’s free choice. Reluctant acceptance of unpalatable advice remained distinct from an involuntary plea.
4. The Crown Court had requested an affidavit from Westminster Magistrates’ Court but received typed notes instead. Those notes neither supported nor contradicted the appellant’s account, and the appellant had declined an adjournment. The omission caused no prejudice and the procedure was reasonable.
5. The Crown Court was entitled to reject the appellant’s account of the words used on re-arraignment. The evidence of counsel, the absence of any apparent reaction in court and the appellant’s later conduct provided an evidential basis for its conclusion. It was unnecessary to decide definitively whether the alleged words, if spoken, would have made the pleas equivocal.
6. The contemporaneous documentary evidence supported the finding that the appellant had reluctantly accepted firm advice, while retaining the final decision. The advice on the merits of the defence was reasonable. The lawyers had not crossed the line into overbearing pressure, and the pleas were voluntary.
7. It was unnecessary to determine the separate issue addressed in R v Kakaei, concerning legal advice which deprived an accused of a defence which would probably have succeeded. In any event, the advice here was not clearly wrong.

1. Isleworth Crown Court: on 27 May 2022, refused the appellant’s appeal and application to vacate her guilty pleas.
2. High Court (King’s Bench Division), Divisional Court: dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and upheld the Crown Court’s decision.