The Court of Criminal Appeal refused W.G. leave to appeal against convictions following guilty pleas to nine sample charges, finding that he had not shown it would be unfair or unjust to deny him a trial on the merits.
In a judgment delivered by McCracken J. on 1 November 2004, the court said the applicant had pleaded guilty in 1990 to three counts of rape of LAG, sexual assault and attempted rape of SG, and three counts of rape and one of buggery of FM. In July 1998 he received concurrent sentences totalling 12 years’ imprisonment.
W.G. sought leave to appeal, arguing that his legal advice had been incomplete and inaccurate and that he had insufficient time to decide whether to plead guilty. He had maintained his innocence to his legal advisers until the trial date.
The court reviewed affidavits from W.G., his solicitor and counsel, and heard cross-examination of W.G. and the solicitor. It found that senior counsel’s advice was sound and given in good faith, and that W.G. knew the decision whether to plead guilty was his alone. The court accepted that his advisers were willing to contest the case if instructed to do so. It also noted that, after expressing misgivings the day after pleading guilty, W.G. later chose to maintain his pleas following further advice.
The judgment recorded medical reports concerning LAG and SG. A forensic medicine professor later criticised the report on LAG as deficient in detail but did not substantially differ from its conclusions. The court said the report did not confirm or deny the principal charges, apart from buggery of LAG, to which W.G. had not pleaded guilty; there was no conviction or sentence for that offence. It concluded that a further independent report would not have affected the outcome or the advice given.
The court also considered a suggestion that separate trials should have been sought for the charges concerning FM. It said a separate trial might have been granted, but the benefit was questionable, and the point had not appeared in W.G.’s affidavit, leaving his advisers no opportunity to respond. The court did not know whether the option had been considered.
Although it found no basis to set aside the pleas, the court was concerned by the lack of consultation before the trial and the short time W.G. had to consider his plea. It also noted that the original junior counsel did not attend, apparently without notifying the solicitor, so neither counsel due to conduct the defence had met W.G. before the hearing. The court said it did not believe this had affected the outcome. It refused leave to appeal.