Supreme Court Claims He Was Told To Plead Guilty

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31007, 12 March 1966, Page 22

Supreme Court Claims He Was Told To Plead Guilty

An appellant claimed in the Supreme Court yesterday that he had pleaded guilty to a traffic charge because a constable had told him it was “only a trivial civil case,” and he had “better plea guilty.”

When a defence of the charge was mentioned, the constable had said: “You’ll get nowhere that way.” The appellant, Raymond Lester Hopping, a carpenter, was conducting his own appeal against conviction for exceeding 30 miles an hour, entered in the Magistrate’s Court on January 26—but was told by Mr Justice Wilson that having pleaded guilty, he had no appeal to the Supreme Court. He should apply to the Magistrate’s Court for a rehearing. “You could apply for a rehearing on the ground that you pleaded guilty by mistake,” his Honour said.

Hopping described being in the back of the Magistrate’s Court when “a policeman came round" inquiring about pleas from defendants. He told the constable he did not quite know what to do about the charge.

“He said it was only a trfvial civil case, and I had better plead guilty,” Hopping said.

Hopping said that he had

been “confused” with courtroom procedure, and did not really understand how to go about conducting his case. He could not understand what the Magistrate was saying to him, because he (Hopping) was “standing at the back.” “I would have pleaded guilty to doing 30 miles an hour, but not to 42,” he said. His Honour told Hopping that the Supreme Court was not the place to traverse the details of his case. “You yourself are putting things in a confusing way,” he said. “There is nothing wrong in driving at 30 miles an hour. But you pleaded guilty to exceeding that.” Hopping: But I wasn’t doing that speed at all. His Honour: The appeal is dismissed.

Hopping, he said, should consult a solicitor to seek a rehearing in the Magistrate’s Court.