Crown Prosecution Service, R (on the application of) v Crown Court At Preston
[2023] EWHC 1957 (Admin)
ZOE PHILLIPS v ISLEWORTH CROWN COURT
21 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 617 (Admin)
High Court
Zoe pleaded guilty to harassment but later said she was pressured and her pleas were unclear. A higher court reviewed the case and decided that, even though it was a stressful situation, Zoe's pleas were valid and her guilty pleas would stand.
Key Facts
- •Zoe Phillips (Appellant) appealed a Crown Court decision refusing her application to vacate guilty pleas entered in Westminster Magistrates' Court on July 2, 2020, for harassment.
- •The pleas were entered after a conference with her solicitor and barrister on June 30, 2020.
- •The Appellant claimed she was unfairly pressured into pleading guilty and that her pleas were equivocal.
- •The Crown Court heard evidence from the Appellant, her lawyers, and witnesses, concluding her pleas were not equivocal and not involuntarily entered.
- •The High Court reviewed the Crown Court's judgment and application of law, focusing on whether the pleas were equivocal or involuntary.
Legal Principles
Procedure for vacating guilty pleas in Crown Court: proper inquiry, sufficient evidence of equivocal plea, prima facie credible evidence, account of Magistrates' Court hearing, potential for affidavit evidence, equivocal plea defined as 'guilty but...', not simply a change of mind or new facts.
R v Rochdale Justices, ex parte Allwork [1981] 73 Cr. App. R. 319; R v Plymouth Justices, ex parte Hart [1986] 2 WLR 976; R v Tottenham Justices, ex parte Rubens [1970] 1 WLR 800; P Foster (Haulage) Ltd v Roberts [1978] 67 Cr. App. R. 305; R v North West Suffolk (Mildenhall) Mags Court, ex parte Forest Heath [1998] Env. L. R. 9; R v Huntingdon Magistrates Court, ex parte Jordan [1981] QB 857; R v Hall [1968] 2 QB 788; R v Turner [1970] 2 QB 321
High Court's role in case stated appeals: limited to examining evidence before lower court, intervention only if decision based on no evidence or perverse; preference of one witness's evidence over another is not an error of law.
R v North West Suffolk (Mildenhall) Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Forest Heath [1998] Env. L. R. 9
Involuntary pleas: Advice so forceful as to remove defendant's free choice; distinction between reluctant and involuntary pleas.
Blackstone at D12.99-102; Archbold at 2-146; Peace [1976] Crim LR 119
Contemporaneous documentary evidence given more weight than oral evidence potentially affected by subsequent events.
Not explicitly cited, but implied in analysis.
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Crown Court's findings of fact were not perverse or irrational. The Appellant's pleas were not equivocal, and while the situation was pressured, her lawyers' advice, though forceful, did not render her pleas involuntary. The High Court found no procedural errors by the Crown Court.