R (Rahmdezfouli) v Crown Court at Wood Green
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Mackay,Lord Justice Moses |
| Judgment Date | 09 October 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 2998 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/10824/2012 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 09 October 2013 |
and
[2013] EWHC 2998 (Admin)
Lord Justice Moses
Mr Justice Mackay
Case No: CO/10824/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
William Clegg QC and Sean Kivdeh (instructed by JVA Law) for the Claimant
The Defendant and the Interested Party did not appear and were not represented
Approved Judgment
Hearing date: 23rd July 2013
The Claimant appeared at the Hendon magistrates' court on 26 June 2012 in response to a summons issued on behalf of the Interested Party pursuant to section 179(2)(8) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 charging him with failure to comply with an enforcement notice. The offence charged was triable either way.
He had failed to attend court on earlier occasions and had been made the subject of a bench warrant not backed for bail. He had surrendered to the police and was produced at court that day. He was an Iranian businessman of some standing, described as owning "various properties in the UK".
At the magistrates' court he was represented by solicitors and counsel and had the services of an interpreter. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.
On 7 and 9 September 2012 he applied to the Crown Court to vacate his plea of guilty, which application was refused. He thereafter launched these proceedings relying on three grounds. The first ground, on which he was granted permission, alleged that the Crown Court judge erred when refusing to allow him to vacate his plea after finding as a fact that the magistrates' court clerk had failed to ask the statutory questions of the applicant as required by section 17A of the Magistrates Court Act 1980. The two grounds on which permission was refused have not been renewed to this court.
The relevant section of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 provides as follows:-
"17A. Initial procedure: accused to indicate intention as to plea.
(1) This section shall have effect where a person who has attained the age of 18 years appears or is brought before a magistrates' court on an information charging him with an offence triable either way.
(2) Everything that the court is required to do under the following provisions of this section must be done with the accused present in court.
(3) The court shall cause the charge to be written down, if this has not already been done, and to be read to the accused.
(4) The court shall then explain to the accused in ordinary language that he may indicate whether (if the offence were to proceed to trial) he would plead guilty or not guilty, and that if he indicates that he would plead guilty –
(a) the court must proceed as mentioned in sub-section (6) below; and
(b) he may be committed for sentence to the Crown Court under section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 if the court is of such opinion as is mentioned in sub-section (2) of that section.
(5) The court shall then ask the accused whether (if the offence were to proceed to trial) he would plead guilty or not guilty.
(6) If the accused indicates that he would plead guilty the court shall proceed as if –
(a) the proceedings constituted from the beginning the summary trial of the information; and
(b) section 9(1) above was complied with and he had pleaded guilty under it.
(7) If the accused indicates that he would plead not guilty section 18(1) below shall apply.
(8) If the accused in fact fails to indicate how he would plead, for the purposes of this section and section 18(1) below he shall be taken to indicate that he would plead not guilty.
(9) Subject to sub-section (6) above, the following shall not for any purpose be taken to constitute the taking of a plea –
(a) asking the accused under this section whether (if the offence were to proceed to trial) he would plead guilty or not guilty;
(b) an indication by the accused under this section of how he would plead."
At the Crown Court it was not disputed that the magistrates' court did not follow the procedure set out above in any respect. Instead defence counsel conferred with his client and on coming into court told the court that his client wished to plead guilty to the offence. It was argued by the Interested Party in its response on paper to this claim that it was therefore appropriate for the court to accept from what counsel said that this defendant was fully aware of the implications of the offence to which he was intending to plead guilty and should therefore be regarded as having been fully informed before making that decision. It was the fact that there had been a restraining order granted under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, of which the claimant must have been aware since he had sought variation of it, therefore the claimant ought to have been aware that confiscation proceedings were going to take place, and that those proceedings could only take place in the Crown Court to which he was therefore bound to be committed for trial. The Interested Party did not appear before this court to develop those submissions further.
The claimant through Mr Clegg QC submits that there was a requirement that the defendant should at the least have explained to him by the court, in ordinary language as the section requires, of four essentials things: that the offence he faced was an either way offence; that he would be asked for an indication as to his plea if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BH v Norwich Youth Court
...court has no jurisdiction in relation to an either way offence. All of that is clear from R(Rahmdezfoul) v Crown Court at Wood Green [2014] 1 WLR 1793. The same applies if an indication of plea pursuant to Section 17A is given by a defendant's representative on their behalf. Since such an ......
-
R Ali Bahbahani v Ealing Magistrates' Court
...should be provided with that option, and was not a requirement which could be waived. In R (Rahmdezfouli) v Wood Green Crown Court [2013] EWHC 2998 (Admin); [2014] 1 WLR 1793 a Divisional Court applied the decision in Cockshott to the requirements of section 17A of the 1980 Act in circums......
-
R (Westminster city council) v Owadally and Another
...the House went on to allow the appeals. 41 R (Rahmdezfouli) v The Crown Court sitting at Wood Green v The London Borough of Barnet [2013] EWHC 2998 (Admin) was a decision of this Court, following an unsuccessful application on the claimant's part in the Crown Court to vacate his plea of gu......
-
R v Terry Butt
...required by section 17A is not followed, that invalidates the subsequent proceedings: R (Rahmdezfouli) v Wood Green Crown Court [2013] EWHC 2998 (Admin), Gould at [103]. The importance of the procedure in section 17A was recognised and explained in Gould in a passage cited in Clark which t......