THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEMPORANEOUS ATTENDANCE NOTES EXAMINED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (BUT A DIFFERENT DIVISION TO THE ONE WE USUALLY LOOK AT)

Today we are taking a rare trip into the criminal courts, the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. However we are looking at an issue that affects most, if not all, lawyers.  A client can attempt to blame their lawyer for decisions that the client has made.  This is where attendance notes become important…

“The contemporaneous records which he made of his conferences with the applicant support his evidence, and the semantic criticisms made of the attendance notes carry no weight.”

KEY PRACTICE POINTS

This case emphasises the importance of attendance notes in every context. The fact that the claimant signed an endorsement and there were contemporary attendance notes meant the court clearly preferred the evidence of the lawyer involved.

THE CASE

Connolly v R. [2025] EWCA Crim 657

THE FACTS

The appellant had been convicted of inciting racial hatred having sent out what was found to be an inflammatory a tweet on X following the Southport murders in July 2024.  She subsequently pleaded guilty to the offence of inciting racial hatred and was sentenced to 31 months’ imprisonment.

THE APPELLANT’S APPEAL

The appellant appealed against her sentence.  One of the grounds of the appeal was that she had not received adequate advice on sentencing from the advocate that represented her, Mr. Muir.

THE LAWYER GIVES EVIDENCE AT THE APPEAL HEARING

The advocate in question gave evidence at the hearing, which is highly unusual.

The appellant had signed an endorsement confirming that her guilty plea meant that she intended to incite and that she was aware that the likely starting point was 3 years’ imprisonment.

Mr Muir, the advocate in question, was cross-examined on the basis that he had not explained the basis of the plea properly.  The criticisms of Mr. Muir were rejected by the Court of Appeal.  One factor in this was the contemporaneous attendance notes that the lawyer had taken.

1. We accept the evidence of Mr Muir and have no doubt that he advised the applicant, and explained matters to her, in the way which he said. He struck us as a conscientious defence lawyer with a clear grasp of the relevant law, practice and procedure and a realistic appraisal of the issues in the case. His response to Mr King’s surprising suggestion, that he might in some way have bypassed the obligation to give written notice of an intended basis of plea, was telling. His evidence made it clear that he had followed his usual practice when representing persons charged with criminal offences, and we reject the suggestion that he gave this client no advice at all on matters of central importance. No reason was suggested why he might have adopted such an approach. The contemporaneous records which he made of his conferences with the applicant support his evidence, and the semantic criticisms made of the attendance notes carry no weight.