Carrasco, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 14th April 2023, at the Crown Court at Lewes, the Appellant pleaded guilty to three offences: two counts of non-fatal strangulation and one count of common assault. The Appellant was sentenced to a total of 12 months' imprisonment. The Appellant is not a British citizen and, due to the sentence length, is subject to automatic deportation under the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007. The Appellant was incorrectly advised by his counsel that automatic deportation would only occur if the sentence exceeded 12 months, whereas the correct threshold is a sentence of 12 months or more.

The Appellant sought leave to appeal against conviction out of time, on the sole ground that his guilty pleas were induced by erroneous legal advice concerning deportation consequences, which he relied upon, and that he had a defence likely to succeed at trial. The application was referred to the full court, which granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, then heard full argument on the appeal's merits.

The background facts include that the Appellant was in a relationship with the complainant. He faced four counts initially, with one count of controlling or coercive behaviour dismissed. The remaining counts involved allegations of strangulation on two occasions and assault by beating on a third party. The complainant was unable to give evidence due to severe injury following a suicide attempt. Evidence included police observations, body-worn camera recordings, witness statements, and photographs.

The Appellant denied the allegations, claiming any force used was in self-defence or to prevent self-harm. The Recorder provided an indication of likely sentence if the Appellant pleaded guilty, initially suggesting nine months with a reduction for plea, later indicating a total sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. The Appellant was advised by counsel, who mistakenly informed him that sentences over 12 months would lead to deportation, but did not pressure him to plead guilty. The Appellant signed a statement confirming his understanding and voluntary choice to plead guilty.

The appeal was argued on the basis that the erroneous advice about immigration consequences undermined the voluntariness and safety of the guilty plea.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether erroneous legal advice regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty plea can render that plea involuntary and unsafe.
2. Whether the Appellant’s guilty plea was a true acknowledgment of guilt or was induced by incorrect advice about deportation, depriving him of a defence likely to succeed at trial.
3. Whether the court should quash a conviction based on such erroneous advice and grant an out-of-time appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that his guilty pleas were not freely made but induced by incorrect legal advice about automatic deportation thresholds.
• He argued that the erroneous advice deprived him of a defence he could have successfully relied upon at trial.
• His counsel submitted that the plea was effectively a plea bargain motivated by immigration concerns rather than an admission of guilt.
• He relied on case law supporting quashing convictions where erroneous advice led to the deprivation of a defence and unsafe pleas, including R v Tredget and R v Whatmore.

Court's Submissions and Reasoning

• The prosecution and court emphasized that sentencing does not consider immigration consequences.
• It was accepted that the Appellant was fit to plead and was fully advised of his options, including proceeding to trial.
• Counsel admitted the erroneous advice but denied any pressure was applied to plead guilty.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began with the principle that a guilty plea is a formal admission of guilt, generally rendering convictions safe. It acknowledged the erroneous legal advice provided by counsel regarding the deportation threshold but found that this advice did not concern the availability or non-availability of any legal defence. The Recorder correctly indicated the sentence without reference to immigration consequences, and the Appellant was free to proceed to trial.

The court distinguished this case from precedents where erroneous advice deprived defendants of legal defences, noting that here the advice related solely to immigration consequences, which do not affect the legal elements of the offences or defences such as self-defence.

Moreover, the Appellant was fit to plead, fully informed, and voluntarily chose to plead guilty, as confirmed by his signed endorsement. The court emphasized that concerns about immigration consequences, while possibly influencing the decision, do not negate the plea as a true acknowledgment of guilt. The court rejected the submission that the plea was a plea bargain motivated solely by immigration concerns without admission of guilt.

Accordingly, the court found no basis to conclude the conviction was unsafe or that the plea was involuntary.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against conviction.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s convictions and sentences stand, and the automatic deportation consequence remains. The decision does not establish new legal precedent but reaffirms the principle that erroneous advice about immigration consequences, absent deprivation of a legal defence, does not render a guilty plea unsafe or involuntary.