Key Facts
- •Juan Ramon Alonso Carrasco pleaded guilty to two counts of non-fatal strangulation and one count of common assault.
- •He received a 12-month prison sentence.
- •He is not a British citizen and faces automatic deportation due to the sentence.
- •His counsel incorrectly advised him about the deportation threshold (12 months vs. over 12 months).
- •He applied for leave to appeal against conviction, arguing his pleas were induced by erroneous legal advice.
- •The victim, Sinead Schooley, was unavailable to testify due to a suicide attempt and resulting brain injury.
- •Hearsay evidence from a bodycam recording and witness testimony was admitted.
- •The appellant denied strangulation, claiming self-defense.
- •The Recorder provided a sentence indication before the plea.
Legal Principles
A guilty plea is a formal admission of guilt, and appeals against conviction based on such pleas are usually unsuccessful.
R v Asiedu [2015] EWCA Crim 714
Exceptions exist where incorrect legal advice deprived the defendant of a legal defense that likely would have succeeded.
R v Tredget [2022] EWCA Crim 108, R v PK [2017] EWCA Crim 486, R v BRP [2023] EWCA Crim 40
Erroneous advice about sentence length rarely invalidates a guilty plea unless it goes to the heart of the plea, making it not a free plea.
R v Saik [2004] EWCA Crim 2936
A guilty plea, even if influenced by factors like immigration concerns, can still be a true acknowledgment of guilt if the defendant had a free choice and understood the implications.
R v Saik [2004] EWCA Crim 2936
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the appellant was fit to plead, there was no improper pressure, and the erroneous advice did not deprive him of a legal defense. The plea was deemed a true acknowledgment of guilt.