One thing I find disturbing is that people are sent to prison because a Lawyer advised them to accept a guilty plea. Of course I mean those that didn’t commit any crime – the innocent. Many will wonder why you would plead guilty to something you didn’t do. Of course there is not a lot of evidence as to how many do this, I hope to write an article about how many sub postmasters did.
One judgement has just been published where they tackle this head on, that being Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 945. In this entry I will focus just on this issue and not on guilt or innocence, much of the evidence comes from doctors and I don’t claim to know any better than them. However just one comment, although this is not the term they used much off the literature talks about “shaken baby syndrome” particularly in the US. There is a famous documentary called the syndrome where the producers believe much of the evidence is pure fantasy. There is also the famous case and appeal against Louise Woodward.
In this case the appellant offered four grounds of appeal of which the first was that he only gave a guilty plea because he was advised, through his Lawyer, that the evidence against him was very strong. However how did he or the Lawyer know the evidence e was strong?
Perhaps due to the publicity against shaken baby syndrome he decided that there were legitimate grounds of appeal.
What I find disturbing is that people seem to accept a guilty plea as if to obtain some sort of mitigation. They don’t feel they are guilty of anything. On the other hand to those prosecuting the case seem to accept it as an absolute certainty that they committed this crime and may start to obtain criminal damages.
The Applicant’s evidence: the Guilty Plea in 2006
33. There is no longer any documentary evidence of the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s guilty plea in 2006. The Applicant himself has some limited memory. On 1 June 2006 the Applicant was represented by a barrister who has since died. The barrister who represented him when he was sentenced on 30 June has no recollection of the case. The solicitor’s firm who acted for him no longer exists. No transcript of the sentencing hearing is available.
The above section is drawn from the appeal being discussed (I hope I can do that) it does point out the difficulty in obtaining anything that was used as evidence in the trial of first instance. Wouldn’t you think that everything is recorded? Everything transcribed that it may be reviewed at some later time? American courts do that but in British courts everything seems so much more ad hoc! Evidence may still exist if someone could be bothered but that is all. This may be caused by the guilty plea, the attitude that this will never be revisited. However it does show that you need to obtain and record all this evidence, yes I know that sounds like a “let them eat cake” kind of argument – easy to say but probably very expensive to implement. Nevertheless failing to do this may cost you your freedom later.
In paragraph 34 it records that the appellant expected to go to court and plead not guilty. However outside the court the solicitor advised hime to plead guilty. There was supposed to be a lot of evidence against him. I find that very strange and I can imagine reasons to do that. One thing I find rather odd is that you are not allowed to offer legal advice unless you are registered to do so (having a practising certificate), I find that a very good thing to do. However it would be more difficult to offer advice on Medicine and Software (for example) and yet it does not prevent them from doing so. It should be said that judge rejected this as the sentence that was proposed did not match with the sentencing guidelines.
He also commented on why he made his plea:
He denied that he pleaded guilty because he was guilty; he said that he pleaded guilty to something he did not do to get less jail time and get back to his family
I imagine that most innocent people giving guilty pleas do this.
The next section are the authorities in this case. One point is ominous, paragraph 53: First, a guilty plea is a public confession of guilt. As a matter of logic and policy, the circumstances in which a guilty plea can be re-opened on appeal are heavily circumscribed.
Once upon a time that may have been a good idea but it surely needs to be brought up to date. Not only doubtful legal advice but corrupt evidence. I’m thinking here of evidence produced by laboratories that may be wrong (it has been suggested that RANDOX produced some bad evidence before they corrected it). Particularly evidence of drugs or DNA you would be better off having independent verification (with apologies again for recommending expensive alternatives.).
R. v Inns (1974) 60 Cr. App. R.
231. He will always have it made clear to him that a plea of guilty, should he choose to tender it, amounts to a confession. Only he knows the true facts, which usually govern whether he is guilty or not and did so here. If he is guilty, the fact that the choice between admitting the truth and nevertheless denying it may be a difficult one does not alter the effect of choosing to admit it. […].”
There you have it, a guilty plea amounts to a confession. I would say not always be stated that way, with Software, Lab Test and expert witness statements there is simply no way to expect most appellants to know that for sure (or even judges, Lawyers or “experts”). There should always be a way of reversing any conviction on this sort of evidence. There is only one version of the truth and the primary purpose of the courts should be to discover what that is.