High Court Clarifies Appeal Process for Guilty Pleas in Magistrates' Court and Wednesbury Unreasonableness

The High Court considered whether the Crown Court’s decision to dismiss an appeal brought under s108 Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 was Wednesbury unreasonable (1) and outlined the process of appealing guilty pleas entered in the Magistrates’ Court. 

Details

In 2006, the claimant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to an offence under s2(1) Asylum and Immigration Act 2004 and was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment. In 2013, he sought an extension of time of 7 years and eight months to appeal, asserting that his plea had been entered on “erroneous legal advice” (paragraph 1). 

The application for leave to appeal was refused on the basis that “any application to vacate the guilty plea would have to be based on advice given seven years ago, and it is…far too late to investigate that properly” (paragraph 8). 

Solicitors for the claimant then made an application to state a case. The primary question was whether the judge had acted Wednesbury unreasonably in the exercise of his discretion. The application to state a case was also refused, with the judge reiterating that the provisions of s108(1) Magistrates Court Act 1980 meant that the only route of appeal for the claimant would be to seek to persuade the Crown Court to vacate his earlier plea of guilty.

 The judicial review, as per paragraph 10, was brought on the basis that the judge was wrong in refusing to exercise his discretion to extend time to appeal. 

The court held that:

  1. The attempted appeal to the Crown Court was governed by s108 Magistrates’ Court Act, which meant that it was constricted by the need to demonstrate an equivocal plea in order to persuade the Crown Court to vacate that plea;
  2. The Crown Court, in deciding whether a plea was equivocal would consider what happened before the lower court, determining whether they ought not to have accepted the plea in light of the information they were given at the time;
  3. In the present case, it was open to the learned judge to conclude that the application for permission was too late because the time elapsed would make it impracticable to probe the legal advice given at the time (that being the basis of the appeal);
  4. In any event, on the facts, there was no prima facie case for asserting that the plea entered had been equivocal.

Accordingly, the claim for judicial review was dismissed. In concluding, the Court noted that the claimant could choose “to take advantage” (paragraph 21) of the statutory scheme as provided by the CCRC. 

Commentary

The claimant in this case sought to bring the appeal under the route of s108 Magistrates’ Court Act and thus would have had to demonstrate that the plea he entered was equivocal in order to allow the Crown Court to entertain vacating that plea. The evidence provided of that equivocality was limited and the Court found that the passage of time meant it would be impracticable to examine the legal advice that was received. Therefore, where using this route to appeal – and particularly where a significant amount of time has elapsed - it is incumbent on practitioners to consider whether and how equivocality can be demonstrated.

While the application for judicial review was dismissed, the Court noted that it was open to the claimant to seek to appeal through the statutory scheme provided by the CCRC which does not have the same constraints in relation to equivocal pleas. A successful reference from the CCRC would enable the claimant to pursue his appeal irrespective of the manner in which his plea was entered or the time elapsed.

It is important to note that children who have entered guilty pleas in the Youth Court are able to appeal directly to the Crown Court via both of these routes. Those advising them should appreciate the differences between the routes and evaluate which is best suited to the particular facts of the child’s case. 

  1. A Wednesbury unreasonable decision is one that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223)

     

     

Written by
Violet Smart, Doughty Street Chambers