The defendant, a 12 year old boy , had been charged, with others, with offences of violence. He denied the charges. He objected to his interview with admissions being used. On being admitted he then pleaded guilty. Later cases against co-defendants were dismissed on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to adduce evidence to rebut the presumption of doli incapax. The claimant was aggrieved and tried to persuade the magistrates to allow him to change his plea to one of not guilty. The magistrates agreed and ordered that the proceedings should be reopened and the case heard again by a different bench. The Director applied for judicial review.
Held: The application succeeded. The justices were wrong to think they could use the section. The purpose of the section was to rectify mistakes. It is a slip rule and should not be extended to cover situations beyond those akin to a mistake. It was wholly wrong to employ section 142(2) to allow a defendant where he could not appeal to the Crown Court because of his plea. The interests of justice also included the interests of the Courts and the public that people who had pleaded guilty with the advice of counsel should continue to be regarded as guilty and that there should be certainty and an end to litigation.
McCowan LJ Popplewell J
[1997] EWHC Admin 446, [1997] 2 Cr App Rep 411
Bailii
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Holme v Liverpool City Justices and Another Admn 6-Dec-2004
The defendant had been convicted of dangerous driving. The victim’s mother complained of the leniency of the sentence, and the magistrates purported to re-open the sentencing under section 142, saying they had been unaware of the very serious nature . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.137391
