Atkinson, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant entered guilty pleas on 2 January 2020 at the Crown Court at Isleworth before His Honour Judge Denniss to one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, two counts of assault by beating under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and one count of criminal damage under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. On 21 February 2020, the appellant was sentenced to a 24-month Community Order with a 40-day rehabilitation activity requirement and a mental health treatment requirement.

Despite the guilty pleas, the appellant appealed against conviction by leave of a Single Judge, who also granted an extension of time. The appellant contended that the pleas were ambiguous and should have been vacated, or alternatively that the court should have exercised discretion to vacate them. She argued that the proceedings were a nullity and/or that her convictions were unsafe.

The appellant was initially represented by Solicitors A and Counsel A. After the pleas were entered, representation was transferred to Solicitors B and Counsel B, who appeared on her behalf during the appeal. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and this opinion sets out the reasons for that decision.

Regarding the facts, the appellant was a patient at The Hospital under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. On 21 June 2019, she caused a disturbance by removing her clothes and refusing oral medication, resulting in staff deciding to administer the medication via injection. After receiving the injection, the appellant ran into the dining room and exhibited erratic and violent behaviour, including throwing furniture and crockery, attempting to self-harm, and assaulting staff members. The dining room was covered by CCTV, which recorded the incident lasting just over six minutes.

During the altercation, the appellant bit and punched nursing staff members. Photographic evidence of bite marks was presented. Additional struggles occurred in a treatment room where the appellant assaulted another staff member. The appellant’s mental health and fitness to plead were assessed by Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist Dr Deo, who concluded she was fit to plead and understood the charges, though she had limited recollection of the events and claimed self-defence.

The appellant initially pleaded not guilty at Westminster Magistrates Court in September 2019. Following assessments confirming fitness to plead, she entered guilty pleas at Isleworth Crown Court on 2 January 2020. Subsequently, she applied to vacate her guilty pleas on the basis of ambiguity and her claim of self-defence, which was contested and ultimately refused by the sentencing judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appellant’s guilty pleas were ambiguous or equivocal, thereby rendering the proceedings a nullity and the convictions unsafe.
2. Whether the court should have exercised its discretion to allow the appellant to vacate her guilty pleas in light of her defence of self-defence and the prospect of success at trial.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contended that her guilty pleas were ambiguous because she repeatedly stated she was acting in self-defence while simultaneously pleading guilty, which should have led to the pleas being recorded as not guilty.
• She argued that the proceedings were a nullity because the pleas were wrongly recorded and that counsel failed in his duty to ensure the pleas accurately reflected her position.
• Even if the pleas were not ambiguous, the appellant submitted the court should have exercised discretion to vacate the pleas because her defence of self-defence had real prospects of success based on the evidence, including CCTV footage and witness statements.
• She further argued that the prosecution evidence was incomplete, and the administration of medication was improperly used as a form of punishment, triggering her reaction.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent submitted that despite the appellant’s references to self-defence, the pleas were unequivocally guilty as confirmed by experienced trial counsel who was professionally satisfied with the pleas.
• The respondent rejected the suggestion that counsel failed to consider self-defence or misled the court about the pleas.
• It was argued that the prosecution evidence, including CCTV footage and witness statements, overwhelmingly demonstrated the appellant’s disruptive and violent behaviour, justifying the use of reasonable force by staff.
• The respondent maintained that the judge correctly refused to vacate the pleas and that the convictions were safe and not unjust.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by considering whether the appellant’s guilty pleas were ambiguous or equivocal such that the proceedings were a nullity. The transcript revealed that the appellant repeatedly referred to self-defence while simultaneously pleading guilty. The judge sought clarification from trial counsel, who confirmed that the appellant had been fully informed and had voluntarily entered guilty pleas with a clear acceptance of guilt. The court found this inconsistent with the appellant’s argument that the pleas were ambiguous or equivocal.

The court distinguished the present case from R v Ingleson, noting that the appellant was legally represented and did not give a complete account inconsistent with guilt. It emphasized that self-defence requires an honestly held belief in the necessity of force and that the appellant’s statements demonstrated a recognition that her violence was unjustified, aligning with a guilty plea.

The appellant’s fitness to plead was confirmed by a forensic psychiatrist, who noted her understanding of the charges and the consequences of pleading guilty. Although the appellant claimed limited recollection and asserted self-defence, the court found her own accounts and the pre-sentence report showed acceptance of guilt and unreasonable behaviour.

Turning to the safety of the convictions, the court acknowledged the appellant’s argument that she was poorly advised and that her defence had real prospects of success. However, the court held that going behind a guilty plea is an exceptional step requiring strong evidence. The prosecution evidence, including CCTV footage and witness statements, overwhelmingly demonstrated the appellant’s violent and disruptive conduct, and the use of reasonable force by staff was justified.

The court rejected assertions that the administration of medication was punitive or unlawful, finding no evidential basis for such claims. The appellant’s behaviour after receiving the injection was aggressive and caused distress to others. The court concluded that the defence of self-defence had no reasonable or probable prospect of success.

Accordingly, the court found no error in the judge’s refusal to vacate the guilty pleas and determined that the convictions were safe and not unjust.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction. The holding confirms that the guilty pleas were neither ambiguous nor equivocal and represented a true acknowledgment of guilt. The court exercised its discretion not to allow the pleas to be vacated, finding no reasonable prospect of success for the appellant’s defence of self-defence. The direct effect is the upholding of the convictions and sentence. No new precedent was established, and the decision reinforces the principle that a defendant’s voluntary and unambiguous guilty plea ordinarily precludes appeal based on a change of mind or belated assertion of a defence.