[2025] EWCA Crim 1172

The applicant complained to the Legal Ombudsman about his legal representation. The solicitors representing the applicant responded with some information. The solicitors had, at the sentencing hearing, accepted that at the Magistrates' Court they "had not forced the issue" about the plea, but that was because there were concerns about the applicant's vulnerability. Reference was also made to family members attending the hearing at the Magistrates' Court. The solicitors accepted that they had not given advice about a Newton hearing, other than to say that the applicant would not succeed in challenging the role ascribed to him. The applicant claimed that he had been told that "no one ever wins".

The Legal Ombudsman looked at various original documents and made findings at the end of July 2023. They were critical of the applicant's former solicitors. It was noted that there was a failure properly to advise the applicant as to the importance of a guilty plea at the first opportunity, which meant that he would not receive credit of 33 per cent; and that the solicitors had failed properly to advise as to the importance of "role" within the sentencing exercise. That meant that, due to the failings of his legal team, the applicant was not in a position properly to challenge the assertions that led to him being placed in a "leading" or "significant" role.

The Legal Ombudsman recorded that, according to the solicitors, they had said that the applicant's mental state meant that he was unable to make a clear decision about whether to plead guilty at the Magistrates' Court; whereas the applicant had contended that the advice he had been given was that, due to the lack of evidence brought by the CPS, he should not plead guilty until further information came to light. It is apparent that the firm of solicitors had intended to send a client care letter to the applicant. Although there were suggestions that such a letter had been sent, the applicant's consistent evidence was that he had never received it. The client care letter, if it was sent, and had it been received, did say: "If you are guilty of charges, you should plead guilty as soon as possible". However, the Legal Ombudsman concluded that there was no evidence that it had been received.

In the final event, the Legal Ombudsman found that there had been inadequate legal representation and made an award of £3,000 for their failure to give proper advice.