Basis of plea meaning

This Checklist This checklist should be read alongside Practice Note: Starting an appeal in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD). In certain matters, appeals may proceed alleging ineptitude by former legal representatives. Even so, counsel are obliged to verify that their client’s assertions are well-founded before launching an appeal on that footing. In light of the Court of Appeal’s rulings in R v Lee, R v McCook and R v Achogbuo, where new solicitors or new advocates are instructed, they must, before settling and lodging the grounds of appeal, make targeted inquiries of the representative(s) who appeared and acted at the trial or plea hearing to confirm that the factual basis underpinning each actual or prospective ground is accurate. Where required, further measures should be taken to secure objective, independent evidence to corroborate that factual basis. These obligations on fresh representatives (the McCook duties) are not confined to conviction applications; they extend equally to sentence appeals. Counsel should reflect on the above duties, as set out in those...

The British Council v Beldica [2024] EAT 92 On 24 June 2024, the EAT determined that the Employment Tribunal’s (ET) ruling allowing human resources manager Ana-Maria Beldica to have her case against her employer, the British Council, heard in the UK had to be set aside because it relied on ‘hypothetical’ reasoning. The tribunal at first instance had endorsed Beldica’s position that she could bring her claim before the UK’s courts, notwithstanding that she worked for the British Council in Dubai, on the basis that there was a risk she would not receive a fair trial in the UAE. That conclusion was founded on the suggestion that the British Council might advance a plea of state immunity which, in turn, would deprive her of a fair hearing...

Abdulrazaq and others v Hassan and others [2021] EWHC 3252 (QB) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment’s central interest lies in its treatment of the claimants’ contention that the impugned words were not, in truth, a reply issued by the defendants to an attack from the claimant. Rather, the claimants advanced that those words amounted to a riposte to an attack they had themselves published in expectation of a likely assault by the defendants (that is, a riposte to a reply published in anticipation). On that basis, the claimants said the privilege ought not to extend to the defendants’ riposte to the claimants’ attack/anticipated reply. Typically, reply-to-attack privilege does not cover the initial publication—the attack—but does protect the reply, irrespective of whether the first publication is defamatory. The claimants maintained that a riposte to a predicted attack should fall outside the privilege. Their position failed on the evidence, yet the judge went on to remark upon the issue. He indicated that, had it been...

The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974) HSWA 1974 applies to employers and to those who are self‑employed. The Sentencing Council (SC) issues guidance for courts in England and Wales, setting out offence‑specific sentencing guidelines for use in the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court which, under section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020), must be followed when sentencing organisations for health and safety offences unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. These sentencing guidelines do not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland, although courts there may have regard to them to assist their sentencing function. For information on sentencing these offences in Scotland, see Practice Note: Sentencing health and safety cases in Scotland. The SC has issued offence‑specific guidelines for courts sentencing organisations for breaches of HSWA 1974 and for contraventions of health and safety regulations. The SC also publishes overarching guidelines to be considered in all sentencing exercises; see Practice Note:...

At its very core, the defence of volenti non fit injuria (‘to a willing person, no injury is done’) rests on the claimant appreciating the hazard presented and voluntarily accepting the possibility of harm in that situation. In those conditions, if harm follows, the claimant has no basis to complain in law. The defence is commonly abbreviated simply to volenti. Once made out, volenti operates as a full and conclusive defence. The rationale is that consent cannot be sliced up to suggest the claimant accepted some dangers yet rejected others. Consequently, success with this plea is confined to cases that are plain. The volenti plea is seldom open in actions alleging breach of statutory duty in particular. Requirements for bringing the defence Three essential elements must exist in order to advance the defence: capacity knowledge and willingness agreement (express or implied) Capacity The claimant must possess the capacity to provide their consent in the manner required by the situation...

This Practice Note outlines when a convicted defendant can obtain a lesser sentence by entering a guilty plea, in line with section 73 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020), known as the Sentencing Code, and the Sentencing Council’s overarching guideline on reductions for a guilty plea. It identifies the relevant statutory route and complementary guidance applied by the courts. Basis for giving credit for an early guilty plea The court may lower the sentence it would otherwise impose to recognise that the offender has admitted the offence, and to reflect the plea itself as a formal acceptance of guilt. The level of credit depends on the point at which the defendant indicates the plea, judged by the stage reached in the proceedings. At most, a one‑third reduction is available in criminal cases, as a ceiling. In truly exceptional matters, the court may depart from the statutory regime in SA 2020, s 73, since it retains a discretion to achieve justice on the specific facts...