LIM Seminar 7- Criminal Justice (28/02/18)
Task 1-
R v Nightingale case summary
Citation- R v Nightingale [2013] EWCA Crim 405 [2013] 2 Cr. App. R. 7
Parties- R (crown) as respondent, Nightingale (Appellant)
Nature of case- Military courts (court-martial), plea change, appeal, firearms, illegal possession,
guilty plea, false defence, memory loss, freedom of choice, sentence indication
Status of court- Court of Criminal Appeal, 3 judges
Facts- defendant (appellant) charged (pleaded guilty) with possession of a prohibited firearm and
ammunition (Firearms Act 1968) during a police search relating to his roommate Sergeant X. had
consultation with counsel but needed more time to discuss. The judge allegedly gave a uninvited
sentence indication that in the circumstances a lower than minimum mandatory term could be
imposed. Sergeant X had received two years detention and this was referred to by the Judge
Advocate, it was widely accepted that following a guilty plea Nightingale would receive a lower
sentence than this. He didn’t feel he could risk 5 years in civilian prison (if he didn’t plead guilty).
Legal issue(s)- Was Nightingales decision to plead guilty a consequence of the uninvited indication
(Goodyear) of sentence so his freedom of choice narrowed?
Should the conviction be over turned?
Was the defendant subject to undue pressure to plead?
Outcome- Appeal Allowed, retrial granted and guilty plea nulled. Conviction based on the plea
quashed
Reasoning- “It is axiomatic (evident)” in the system that a guilty plea is the “personal responsibility”
of the defendant. (citing R v Turner and R v Goodyear). It is the duty of the advocate to give realistic,
forthright advice on pleading guilty. This (among other family pressures and that from the lawyers)
don’t “deprive the defendant of his freedom to choose” his plea. The judge however, must “maintain
his distance” and remain “outside this confidential process”. Exceptions in Turner and Goodyear
including the “Goodyear indication” which can be sought by the defendant and an indication of the
type/form of sentence. If imprisonment is inevitable a judge cant by his own initiative give an
uninvited indication. The indication had created “inappropriate additional pressures” and “narrowed
the proper ambit of his freedom of choice”
Illustrates adversarial nature of the courts
Task 2-
To what extent can the criminal justice system in England and Wales be characterised as
‘adversarial’?
Inquisitorial
o Judge takes the lead- more interventionist
o Can sometimes benefit from self-representation (not as much legal knowledge so get
away with more and judge more lenient?- McDonalds example)
o Jury is rare, if they are there guided very closely by the judge
o Rules of evidence not quite as prominent as in adversarial- more discretion
o Dossier (could influence outcome?)
McEwan J study
Crown v magistrates
o Magistrates less formal
Task 1-
R v Nightingale case summary
Citation- R v Nightingale [2013] EWCA Crim 405 [2013] 2 Cr. App. R. 7
Parties- R (crown) as respondent, Nightingale (Appellant)
Nature of case- Military courts (court-martial), plea change, appeal, firearms, illegal possession,
guilty plea, false defence, memory loss, freedom of choice, sentence indication
Status of court- Court of Criminal Appeal, 3 judges
Facts- defendant (appellant) charged (pleaded guilty) with possession of a prohibited firearm and
ammunition (Firearms Act 1968) during a police search relating to his roommate Sergeant X. had
consultation with counsel but needed more time to discuss. The judge allegedly gave a uninvited
sentence indication that in the circumstances a lower than minimum mandatory term could be
imposed. Sergeant X had received two years detention and this was referred to by the Judge
Advocate, it was widely accepted that following a guilty plea Nightingale would receive a lower
sentence than this. He didn’t feel he could risk 5 years in civilian prison (if he didn’t plead guilty).
Legal issue(s)- Was Nightingales decision to plead guilty a consequence of the uninvited indication
(Goodyear) of sentence so his freedom of choice narrowed?
Should the conviction be over turned?
Was the defendant subject to undue pressure to plead?
Outcome- Appeal Allowed, retrial granted and guilty plea nulled. Conviction based on the plea
quashed
Reasoning- “It is axiomatic (evident)” in the system that a guilty plea is the “personal responsibility”
of the defendant. (citing R v Turner and R v Goodyear). It is the duty of the advocate to give realistic,
forthright advice on pleading guilty. This (among other family pressures and that from the lawyers)
don’t “deprive the defendant of his freedom to choose” his plea. The judge however, must “maintain
his distance” and remain “outside this confidential process”. Exceptions in Turner and Goodyear
including the “Goodyear indication” which can be sought by the defendant and an indication of the
type/form of sentence. If imprisonment is inevitable a judge cant by his own initiative give an
uninvited indication. The indication had created “inappropriate additional pressures” and “narrowed
the proper ambit of his freedom of choice”
Illustrates adversarial nature of the courts
Task 2-
To what extent can the criminal justice system in England and Wales be characterised as
‘adversarial’?
Inquisitorial
o Judge takes the lead- more interventionist
o Can sometimes benefit from self-representation (not as much legal knowledge so get
away with more and judge more lenient?- McDonalds example)
o Jury is rare, if they are there guided very closely by the judge
o Rules of evidence not quite as prominent as in adversarial- more discretion
o Dossier (could influence outcome?)
McEwan J study
Crown v magistrates
o Magistrates less formal
