REGINA v Love & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

On 30th August 2012 in the Crown Court at Isleworth, the applicants, referred to here as Plaintiff and Defendant, each pleaded guilty to a count of burglary contrary to section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968. The indictment charged them with entering "a building namely 36 Main Street" as trespassers with intent to steal. Although the building was known to be a dwelling, the indictment did not specify this, which was significant for sentencing purposes under section 9(3) of the Theft Act 1968 and the statutory minimum sentence provisions under section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 related to previous dwelling burglaries.

After the pleas, defence counsel highlighted that the statutory minimum sentence did not apply because the indictment failed to particularise the building as a dwelling. The prosecution applied to amend the indictment to substitute "dwelling" for "building." The defence argued that the pleas could not be vacated, but the judge allowed the pleas to be vacated and permitted the amendment. The applicants were re-arraigned and again pleaded guilty to the amended indictment.

The judge sentenced Plaintiff to 10 months' imprisonment plus consecutive sentences for breaches of suspended sentences, and Defendant to 876 days' imprisonment (three years less credit for plea) plus consecutive sentences for breaches of suspended sentences.

Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were referred to the full court, focusing on whether the pleas should have been vacated and whether the sentences were excessive.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to vacate the applicants' pleas of guilty to the original indictment without an application by the defence.
2. Whether the prosecution was entitled to amend the indictment after the applicants had pleaded guilty.
3. Whether the convictions based on the amended indictment are safe.
4. Whether the sentences imposed, particularly on Plaintiff, were manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the pleas of guilty absent an application by the defendants, per Criminal Procedure Rules rule 39.3.
• The prosecution was not entitled to amend the indictment after guilty pleas were entered.
• The amended indictment and resulting convictions are defective and unsafe.
• Even accepting the amendment power, vacating the pleas without defence application was a material irregularity justifying quashing the convictions and substituting convictions on the original indictment.
• Regarding sentence, the sentence imposed on Plaintiff was excessive even if the offence was properly classified as burglary of a dwelling.

Respondent's Arguments

• The convictions are safe because the applicants pleaded guilty to the amended indictment and accepted their guilt.
• The applicants were aware from the Magistrates' Court stage that the charge was burglary of a dwelling.
• The amendment caused no prejudice beyond denying the applicants the advantage of the error in the original indictment.
• No law or statute prohibits vacating a plea in the interests of justice.
• The judge's approach was consistent with the overriding objective of the Criminal Procedure Rules.
• Even if there was a procedural irregularity, it did not render the convictions unsafe.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reasoned that the power to amend an indictment after a guilty plea is well established, referencing R v JW and S v Recorder of Manchester. The amendment to specify the building as a dwelling was a correction of an oversight known to all parties and caused no injustice. Although the appellants argued that pleas could only be vacated on their application, the court found no basis to deny the judge the power to vacate the pleas. However, this point was ultimately immaterial because the judge's approach effectively mirrored the alternative procedure approved in R v JW—offering the opportunity to vacate pleas or stand to the amended indictment. The applicants re-pleaded guilty unequivocally, removing any doubt about the safety of convictions.

Regarding sentencing, the court reviewed the facts of the burglary and the judge's categorisation of the offence as Category 2 burglary. Despite submissions that it should have been Category 3, the court found the judge's categorisation and resulting sentence for Plaintiff were within a reasonable range given the circumstances and the applicant's criminal history.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the applications for appeal against conviction and sentence.

The convictions based on the amended indictment are upheld as safe. The court confirmed that the judge had the power to amend the indictment post-plea and to vacate pleas in the interests of justice. The applicants' unequivocal guilty pleas to the amended indictment negated any risk of unsafe convictions. The sentence imposed on Plaintiff was not manifestly excessive. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reaffirmed existing principles regarding indictment amendments and plea vacatur.