R v Kevin George March

An entered guilty plea may be vacated before sentence. An equivocal plea is not a true guilty plea. Even where the plea was unequivocal, the court retains a residual discretion, which must be exercised judicially. The defendant bears the burden of showing that justice requires the plea to be vacated. Undue pressure, deficient legal advice or another good reason may justify relief. A change of mind because others may also be responsible is insufficient. Deficiencies in disclosure or investigation likewise do not justify vacating a plea unless they are materially capable of undermining it.

The applicant, a company director, pleaded guilty at Cardiff Crown Court on 15 May 2019 to an offence under section 37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, arising from construction work and an alleged breach of Regulation 13(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2005. His application to vacate the plea was refused by Jefford J. He later renewed applications for a 1715-day extension of time, leave to appeal against conviction and a representation order. He relied on alleged disclosure failures, investigative shortcomings and poor legal representation. The central issue was whether those matters justified vacating the guilty plea and pursuing a late appeal.

1. Disposition. The renewed applications for an extension of time, leave to appeal against conviction and a representation order were refused. The court agreed with the Single Judge.
2. Applicable principles. In R v Dodd (1981) 74 Cr App R 50, the court confirmed that the Crown Court has discretion to allow a defendant to change a guilty plea to not guilty at any time before sentence. An equivocal plea is not a true guilty plea. Even where the plea is unequivocal, a residual discretion remains and must be exercised judicially. The applicant bears the onus of demonstrating that justice requires the plea to be vacated. Undue pressure, deficient legal advice or another good reason may suffice.
3. Application. A simple change of mind because others may also have been responsible was insufficient. Deficiencies in disclosure or investigation did not justify relief unless they were sufficiently material to undermine the plea. Complaints about legal representation also required a cogent basis. The transcript showed that the applicant understood the necessary elements of the offence when he pleaded guilty and continued to accept a degree of neglect when seeking to vacate the plea.
4. The alleged investigative and disclosure shortcomings were not sufficiently material, and the complaints about representation lacked cogency. None of the matters raised was fresh or capable of overcoming the limited circumstances in which an entered guilty plea may be vacated. Although the court recognised the delay caused by adverse advice and the applicant’s medical diagnosis, the proposed grounds had no merit, so it was unnecessary to investigate the delay further.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for an extension of time, leave to appeal against conviction and a representation order refused under [2025] EWCA Crim 617.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Single Judge: earlier applications refused, with reasons provided to the applicant.
• Cardiff Crown Court: application to vacate the guilty plea refused by Jefford J; the applicant was later sentenced by HHJ P Thomas KC.