R v Juan Ramon Alonso Carrasco

A fit defendant who enters an unambiguous guilty plea ordinarily makes a voluntary admission, and a conviction based on it is safe. The narrow exception for erroneous legal advice applies where the advice deprives the defendant of a legally available defence and the defence would probably have succeeded. Advice about sentence or collateral immigration consequences does not ordinarily engage that exception where it neither affects the defence nor involves improper pressure. A difficult choice, or a wish to avoid deportation, does not by itself make the plea involuntary or cease to be a true acknowledgement of guilt. The relevant question is whether the advice went to the heart of the plea and whether the defendant freely chose to admit the offences.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Lewes to two offences of non-fatal strangulation and one offence of common assault. He received a total sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, which made him liable to automatic deportation under the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007.

His counsel had incorrectly advised him that automatic deportation would follow only a sentence exceeding 12 months. The appellant applied out of time for leave to appeal against conviction, arguing that his pleas were induced by erroneous advice and were not free acknowledgements of guilt. The full court extended time and granted leave. The central issue was whether the erroneous immigration advice made the convictions unsafe.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court granted a 31-day extension of time and leave to appeal before hearing the substantive appeal.

1. A defendant who is fit to plead and enters an unambiguous guilty plea ordinarily makes a formal admission of guilt. A difficult decision, or the influence of several factors, does not by itself remove the defendant’s freedom of choice. This approach was applied from R v Asiedu [2015] EWCA Crim 714.
2. There is a recognised category of cases in which erroneous legal advice may make a guilty-plea conviction unsafe. It applies where the advice deprives the defendant of relying on a defence available in law and that defence would probably have succeeded. The authorities included R v Tredget [2022] EWCA Crim 108, R v PK [2017] EWCA Crim 486, R v BRP [2023] EWCA Crim 40 and R v Boal [1992] QB 591.
3. Erroneous advice about sentence length or immigration consequences is materially different. Following R v Saik [2004] EWCA Crim 2936, such advice will rarely undermine the safety of a conviction unless it goes to the heart of the plea. Improper pressure may do so, but there was no such pressure from the Recorder or counsel. The Recorder correctly treated immigration matters as irrelevant to sentencing and made no representation about the immigration consequences.
4. The advice did not affect the defences to the charges. It neither failed to identify a defence nor wrongly advised that an available defence could not be relied upon. The prosecution remained required to prove the strangulation, unlawfulness and absence of self-defence, and the assault.
5. The appellant had been advised of his options, including continuing to trial, and chose to plead guilty. His concern about deportation, even if a principal factor, did not prevent the plea from being a true acknowledgement of guilt. R v Whatmore [1999] Crim LR 87 was materially different because the plea did not amount to an admission of guilt and resulted from erroneous advice about the evidential use of the plea.

• Crown Court at Lewes: The appellant pleaded guilty to three offences and received a total sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Time was extended and leave to appeal was granted. The appeal against conviction was dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 499.