Kamran Malik [2019] EWCA Crim 1079

The offender renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction and appealed against sentence with leave of the single judge. He changed his plea to guilty to 4 counts of providing immigration on the day he was due to stand trial with his wife. She had been facing similar counts which were then ordered to lie on file. He sought to vacate his guilty pleas and was refused. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay costs of £48,000 and £16,700 compensation.

The essential complaint against conviction was that he was misled by counsel when they discussed pleas and that he had ‘no clue’ as to what the basis of plea document was that he was signing. The Court could not accept that he was in any doubt as to what he was doing by changing his pleas in the way that he did, nor that there was any ambiguity. There was no hesitation in refusing the renewed application.

The appeal against sentence focussed on the compensation ordered, the ground being that the judge failed to consider his ability to comply with such an order. The judge did not refer to his means or his ability to pay the compensation or the costs despite counsel explaining the benefits that the appellant was in receipt of.

Held: “we are driven to the conclusion that the judge failed to do as subsection 130(11) (of the PCCSA 2000) requires him to do as regards the making of a compensation order”. The order was quashed but the question of whether an order should be made was remitted to the crown court to be decided by a different judge. Although the appellant did not expressly seek to challenge the costs order it was logical that this should also be considered by the crown court.