Atkinson, R. v
The appellant's guilty pleas were not ambiguous or equivocal; she was legally represented, counsel confirmed the pleas, and there was no evidence her pleas were not a true acknowledgment of guilt. The judge was correct to refuse to vacate the pleas, and the evidence did not support a reasonable prospect of success for a defence of self-defence. The convictions are safe and no injustice has occurred.
- Parties
- Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Shanice Atkinson
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 February 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Guilty Plea
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Guilty Pleas, Self Defence, Vacating Pleas, Mental Health and Fitness to Plead
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Respondent
Shanice Atkinson
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Guilty Plea
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the guilty pleas entered by the appellant were ambiguous or equivocal
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to allow the appellant to vacate her guilty pleas
- 3 Whether the convictions are unsafe due to the circumstances of the pleas and the existence of a possible defence of self-defence
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant's guilty pleas were not ambiguous or equivocal; she was legally represented, counsel confirmed the pleas, and there was no evidence her pleas were not a true acknowledgment of guilt. The judge was correct to refuse to vacate the pleas, and the evidence did not support a reasonable prospect of success for a defence of self-defence. The convictions are safe and no injustice has occurred.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment