202302559 B1 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1149

Ground 3:

The appellant submits that the guilty plea to count 5 was also equivocal. He contends that the suspicion which he admitted in his basis of plea (see paragraph 13(ii) above) arose from PC Hemns’ email but by the time of the conduct charged in count 5 had been dispelled by his own research and his belief that he was acting lawfully. A defence under s28 of MDA 1971 was therefore available to him, and he was incorrectly advised. It is submitted that even if the plea was entered on a pragmatic basis, to avoid the risk of a sentence of immediate imprisonment, the conviction is nonetheless unsafe.

The respondent submits that the appellant was fully advised about the defence afforded by s28(3) of the MDA 1971. Such a defence plainly had no prospect of success. The respondent further submits that consideration of whether the guilty plea was “pragmatic” is irrelevant: the appellant made his decision and entered an unequivocal guilty plea.