June 14
The defendant, a vulnerable man with an extremely low intellect who suffered from anxiety and depression, was arrested and interviewed under caution in connection with four offences of rape, two offences of assault by penetration and one offence of harassment.. He did not accept committing the sexual offences, believing initially that if the complainant made allegations something must have happened and that they would have rather than did happen. After accepting certain instances of sexual activity had occurred he said he believed that the complainant had been awake and consented to it. He also reported having memory loss and at the third interview said he was taking medication for anxiety and depression and morphine for a shoulder injury. He was charged with the offences and committed to the Crown Court. At the plea and trial preparation hearing, at which the defendant was unrepresented, the judge (i) asked the defendant whether he wanted legal representation but he said not since he had done nothing wrong and so did not need it; (ii) explained the consequences of pleading guilty and not guilty and asked him if he had been the subject of any Mental Health Act difficulty to which the defendant replied he had suffered from depression since 2007 and taken medication for it between 2011 and 2014; (iii) told him a defence advocate might wish to investigate whether he had been severely depressed at the material time and recommended he take legal advice prior to arraignment; (iv) asked him whether he knew at the relevant time what he had been doing was wrong and he replied he did not but continued to refuse legal representation, agreeing only to speak to the solicitor present who had represented him in the magistrates’ court for less than half an hour. The solicitor said there was no impediment to the indictment being put to him and the defendant pleaded guilty to the offences. At a later hearing, the Crown applied to vacate two of his pleas to counts of rape. The defendant appealed against conviction on the grounds, inter alia, that his pleas were equivocal in light of the fact the Crown applied to vacate his pleas to two counts and his guilty pleas did not involve any true acceptance of his guilt.
On the appeal—
Held, appeal allowed. The defendant’s steadfastness in his claims in interview that he believed the complainant agreed to the relevant sexual activity was a highly relevant context to the fact he could not say whether at the relevant time he knew what he was doing was wrong when the pleas were entered. The clear doubt the defendant expressed again shortly before pleading guilty as to whether he knew at the time of the alleged offences what he was doing was wrong was inconsistent with his guilty pleas to rape, assault by penetration and harassment. The defendant added a clear qualification by raising doubt as to whether he had the mens rea necessary for any of the offences immediately prior to the indictment being put which, if true, might have meant he was not guilty of the offences. By pleading to the indictment the defendant accepted he did not believe the complainant consented to the four sexual offences and that he knew or ought to have known his conduct would cause fear of violence to her. A cursory perusal of the defendant’s interviews to which the judge had access on the digital case system would have revealed the defendant’s clearly and consistently expressed stance. Where an unrepresented defendant pleaded guilty care should always be taken to check that he understood the elements of the offence especially if there were indications before the judge that he might have a defence. Having identified correctly a central question that needed to be resolved the judge failed to do so following the meeting between the solicitor and defendant and should have entered not guilty pleas and adjourned the case for trial. Bearing in mind the defendant was unrepresented, the pleas were equivocal and rendered the proceedings which were based on them a nullity. Accordingly, the convictions were quashed (paras 35–39).
David Emanuel QC (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
Siobhan Collins (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Appeals Unit, Special Crime Division) for the Crown.