Hughes, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application by the Defendant to renew leave to appeal the Crown Court judge's refusal to vacate his guilty plea to one count of breaching a restraining order. The Restraining Order was made on 24 July 2013 and was varied on 30 June 2020; prohibition 2 forbade conducting or causing video surveillance of the protected property's address and acting so as to give the protected persons the reasonable impression they were under surveillance. The Defendant was arrested on 21 June 2020 and charged on 14 January 2021 with four alleged breaches occurring on dates in May and June 2020. At an earlier hearing the Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts (counts 2 and 4) on a basis of plea accepted by the prosecution on 24 July 2023; other counts were left on the file. The Defendant later sought to vacate his pleas. At the hearing before Judge Donne on 29 April 2024 the judge allowed the application to vacate the plea to count 2 (which was then left on the file) but refused to vacate the plea to count 4. The Defendant was sentenced by Judge Donne to a 16 month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, 20 days of Rehabilitation and Activity Requirements, prosecution costs of £1,630 and a statutory surcharge of £156. The Defendant sought leave to appeal the refusal to allow him to change his plea; leave was refused on the papers by a single judge and the Defendant applied to renew that application, which is the subject of the present judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the Crown Court judge's refusal to permit the Defendant to change his plea to count 4.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in law or in the exercise of his judicial discretion in refusing to vacate the guilty plea (including whether the plea was equivocal or the product of compulsion, and whether a reasonable excuse defence had merit).
3. Whether alleged disclosure failures by the prosecution justified allowing the appeal or vacating the plea.
4. Whether fresh evidence sought to be adduced would afford grounds for allowing the appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• There was a failure by the prosecution to provide full disclosure as directed at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing.
• The indictment was flawed as it referred to the restraining order date incorrectly (25 July 2013 rather than 24 July 2013) and in any event the Restraining Order had been varied in 2020.
• The Defendant had a defence/reasonable excuse (he had applied to vary the Restraining Order to allow urgent investigation of potential damage to his property and his surveyor needed photographs).
• Criticism of prior legal advisers: the Defendant was forced to plead guilty and they failed to obtain expert evidence.
• An argument based on ill-health affecting the Defendant's conduct and procedural history.
• An application to adduce fresh evidence from five named individuals.

Respondent's Arguments

• The prosecution accepted the basis of plea as mitigation and did not seek trial on count 2; the factual matters proving the alleged breach of count 4 were not in dispute (photographs, CCTV, digital evidence and photographer's files showed the photographer present and instructed by the Defendant).
• The alleged disclosure failures were not articulated and, in any event, did not undermine the undisputed primary facts of the breach.
• The Defendant's prior Defence Case Statement and statements from his former lawyers undermined assertions of being forced to plead guilty or lacking advice about a reasonable excuse defence.
• The proposed fresh evidence did not provide ground to allow the appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court, through Judge Stacey's judgment, reviewed the Crown Court judge's ex tempore reasons and concluded the exercise of discretion to refuse a change of plea was lawful and plainly open to the judge. The court noted:

• Judge Donne had considered the Defendant's points, conducted a two hour hearing and reached a reasoned conclusion that it was not in the interests of justice to permit a change of plea to count 4.
• There was no evidence the guilty plea was the product of compulsion, and the plea was not equivocal—it was a plea advancing mitigation.
• The primary facts establishing the breach were undisputed: the Defendant engaged a photographer, CCTV and photographs showed the photographer at the protected property's boundary, and digital evidence from the Defendant's phone and the photographer's devices corroborated instructions and images.
• The Defence Case Statement demonstrated the Defendant had previously asserted a reasonable excuse, undermining any later claim that he had not been advised a reasonable excuse would afford a defence.
• The minor error in the indictment date did not cause confusion about the terms or date of the Restraining Order; the Defendant accurately referred to the order in applications and correspondence.
• Criticism of prior lawyers, including failure to obtain expert evidence, was not shown to have altered the merits of the Defendant's position; any expert material would not have made it reasonable to take the law into the Defendant's own hands rather than seeking expedition of the variation application.
• No causal link was shown between the Defendant's health and the actions constituting the breach; medical delays in the proceedings were noted but no compelling medical reason existed to postpone the hearing before Judge Donne.
• The application to adduce fresh evidence from five proposed witnesses was refused because that evidence did not afford grounds to allow the appeal.

Holding and Implications

LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED

Consequences and direct effects:

• The Defendant's application to renew leave to appeal the refusal to vacate the guilty plea to count 4 is refused; the Crown Court judge's decision is upheld.
• The application to adduce fresh evidence (from Witness A, Witness B, Witness C, Witness D and Witness E) is refused.
• The sentence imposed by Judge Donne (16 months' imprisonment suspended for two years, 20 days Rehabilitation and Activity Requirements, prosecution costs of £1,630 and a statutory surcharge of £156) remains in effect.

No new legal precedent was established by this decision; the court applied settled principles governing the judicial discretion to allow a defendant to change a plea prior to sentence.