[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Ngyuen, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 413 (19 February 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/413.html Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 413

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT WOOLWICH
HHJ SHORROCK T20230211

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		19 February 2025

1. MRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBB: The applicant, who is aged 60, renews his application for leave to appeal against conviction following a guilty plea in respect of a charge of criminal damage entered at the Woolwich Crown Court on 14 March 2024.
2. The facts were that on 12 March 2023 he went to a car pound managed by the DVLA and climbed into the pound using a ladder set against a fence. The police were alerted by CCTV operators because he could then be seen driving around the site in a white Honda vehicle. He was also observed cutting a lock in preparation for opening the gates and, presumably, removing that vehicle.
3. When the police arrived the applicant was found by a police dog hiding under a different motorcar. In his possession was a backpack containing an angle grinder. This had been used to damage the padlock on the gate. On arrest the applicant said: "How can I steal my own car?"
4. In due course he was charged with criminal damage and attempted theft in addition to going equipped for theft. He elected Crown Court trial and pleaded guilty to criminal damage on the day of trial. The prosecution offered no evidence on the other counts.
5. He was sentenced by way of a conditional discharge for two years and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £250 and compensation of £50, both of which were reduced from the amount sought by the prosecution following consideration of his means. The victim surcharge was also imposed.
6. The proposed grounds of appeal formulated by the applicant himself are, in summary, that he felt under pressure to plead guilty when he had not in fact caused any damage. He did not fully understand the decision he was making. His barrister arrived at court late and did not look after his best interests and he considers himself to have been blackmailed by the Crown Prosecution Service.
7. In view of the criticisms made of trial counsel, the applicant waived privilege and counsel has informed this court that he arrived in good time and consulted with the applicant before and after an interpreter arrived. Throughout his advice was that the evidence was overwhelming regarding the damage that had been caused to the lock, however the applicant had a viable defence to the other two charges in that he had acted in the honest belief that his property had been unlawfully confiscated and he was entitled to try and regain possession of it. Counsel also makes clear that in an entirely usual and proper discussion with the prosecution before the trial began, he was told that a plea of guilty to criminal damage would result in no further proceedings in respect of the other two charges. He explained all of this to the applicant in the presence of his interpreter and the applicant said he had decided to plead guilty. No pressure was exerted and the applicant accepted he was guilty of causing the criminal damage of which there was photographic evidence.
8. The prosecution has also provided a brief, but explanatory, Respondent's Notice.
9. In response to this the applicant maintains that he had a defence on the basis he was simply retrieving his own personal property. The CCTV footage would have shown that a padlock which was said to have been damaged was already rusty. The prosecution barrister interrupted the conference he was having with his own lawyer to suggest a plea bargain, which the applicant was then pressured into agreeing to.
10. In his defence statement served before the listing for trial the applicant described how his car had been impounded due to his failure to pay congestion charges and a fine. When he discovered where the vehicle was being kept he sought to regain possession of it by entering the pound, plainly without permission or lawful authority, locating his car, getting into it and driving towards the gates. He also admitted in the defence statement that, as the gates were locked, he used an angle grinder to try and open the padlock but the lock was too strong. He believed he had not caused any damage. He agreed that, when the police arrived, he had hidden under a car.
11. It is clear therefore that the applicant was admitting responsibility for any damage caused to the padlock, albeit he believed that no damage had in fact been caused. The CCTV footage of his actions was available to him and to the court. It was to be relied on at the trial. These were the circumstances in which the applicant was advised he had no realistic defence to the charge of criminal damage given it had cost over £280 to repair the lock which he admitted taking his angle grinder to.
12. We have considered all the material the applicant has provided independently for ourselves. He has attended today and taken the opportunity to address the court. He explains that he had tried to pay the debt he owed but the figure being demanded of him was unfairly high. Having found out the address of the DVLA pound he went there to check the condition of the car. He denies moving his car or doing anything to the lock. He hid when the police arrived and he was arrested. At the Crown Court he was speaking to his barrister when the CPS advocate knocked on the door and had a meeting with his lawyer. After that conversation he was persuaded to plead guilty despite in the event having been deprived entirely of his car which was worth more than £10,000. We note that if indeed that is the case then the applicant may have civil remedies which he may care to pursue but about which this court does not give any advice.
13. We are not persuaded that there are any grounds upon which the applicant could succeed in demonstrating that his conviction is unsafe. There is no support for the suggestion that defence counsel arrived late or that either prosecution or defence counsel coerced him into changing his plea. The assertions made by the applicant today, namely that he had not interfered with the lock at all, are contradicted by the evidence available at the time he pleaded guilty. Where the offender has pleaded guilty there are limited circumstances in which a conviction may be assailed and none arise in this case. We bear in mind when considering the applicant's assertion that he found himself overwhelmed and did not fully understand what he was doing that he is, sadly, well-acquainted with the courts, having collected 29 previous convictions for 54 offences. These include several previous matters of criminal damage and vehicle interference in both the Crown Court and the Magistrates' Court. It was counsel's duty to advise the applicant as to the strength of the evidence and we are satisfied that there is no support whatsoever for his assertion that he was coerced into changing his plea to one of guilty. Furthermore, any potential defence of lawful right to retrieve an unlawfully confiscated vehicle and lack of intention to commit theft that he may have had to the two charges which were not proceeded with could not avail him in respect of the offence to which he did plead guilty. At the time the plea was entered the prosecution could prove that the damage had been done, which included CCTV footage of the applicant's actions and the state of the lock afterwards requiring, as we have said, hundreds of pounds worth of repair.
14. Accordingly, this renew application for leave to appeal must be refused.