{"id":579082,"date":"2026-04-16T18:13:53","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T16:13:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-kevin-george-march\/"},"modified":"2026-04-16T18:13:53","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T16:13:53","slug":"r-v-kevin-george-march","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-kevin-george-march\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Kevin George March"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>MRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBB: 1. Mr\u00a0Kevin\u00a0March (who is now aged 73) has attended today and explained his reasons for renewing applications for an extension of time of 1715 days, for leave to appeal against conviction and for a representation order following refusal, with reasons provided by the Single Judge. 2. On 15\u00a0May 2019, in the Crown Court at Cardiff, the applicant (then aged 67) pleaded guilty to count 2 on the indictment of an offence stated as \u201cCONSENT, CONNIVANCE OR NEGLECT BY A DIRECTOR in the commission of an offence by a body corporate contrary to section 37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.\u201d The Particulars of\u00a0 Offence to which the applicant pleaded guilty provide: \u201c\u2026 between the 5th\u00a0October 2015 and 4th\u00a0October 2016, in respect of construction work at West Aberthaw Farm Barns Project, Barrie, being a director of Pro\u2019Conn Limited, a body corporate to which the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 apply and which had committed an offence contrary to Regulation 13(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2005, in that it failed to plan, manage and monitor the construction work to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that the work carried out by it or under its control was carried out without risk to health and safety, including that of David White; that offence was committed with his consent or connivance or was attributable to neglect on his part.\u201d We emphasise the last seven words. 3. On\u00a019 December 2019 the applicant applied to vacate his guilty plea. If that had been allowed the plea would revert to not guilty and the prosecution would have to prove the case against him at a trial. However, the application was refused by Jefford J, who gave a reasoned judgment which Mr\u00a0March has in writing. The plea of guilty then remained in place. Sometime later, on 17\u00a0November 2020, the applicant was sentenced to 32 weeks\u2019 imprisonment suspended for 12 months by HHJ P Thomas KC. He was ordered to pay costs of \u00a320,000, a statutory surcharge was imposed and he was disqualified from being a company director for 5 years. 4. Mr\u00a0March is well aware of the circumstances of the prosecution which arose from the death of David White, a 33-year-old labourer, working at a construction site where the applicant\u2019s company Pro\u2019Conn was converting barns into living accommodation. Mr\u00a0White was not qualified to drive a dumper truck or other plant vehicles. But on 1\u00a0October 2016 he had agreed to do overtime working on the site on his own. The construction site had rough made-up roads and slopes constructed from the removal of spoil. These roads were temporary and in places the terrain was unsuitable for vehicular use because it exceeded the maximum machine operating slope of 14 degrees. 5. Although there was no eyewitness or CCTV evidence\u00a0of the fatal accident, the investigation concluded that Mr\u00a0White had been driving a dumper truck to move soil from one part of the site to another, and died when it overturned at or near a slope. The body of the deceased man was not discovered until 3\u00a0October 2016. 6. The applicant\u2019s company went into liquidation shortly after Mr\u00a0White\u2019s death but following an investigation into the working practices on site, the applicant was prosecuted for failures in his company\u2019s health and safety duties. In essence, the basis of the prosecution was that Pro\u2019Conn\u2019s inadequate procedures were a substantial cause of the fatal accident and where a offence is committed by a company and is proved to be attributable neglect on the part of any director of the company, then that individual is also guilty of an offence. 7. The applicant pleaded guilty, as it is said, and at that time he was legally represented. As is frequently the case, especially concerning health and safety prosecutions there was a limited basis of plea. That basis was reduced to writing. In summary, the applicant stated that the company of which he was sole director at the relevant time had subcontracted with another body (the TSD Group) of which a man, Graham Kuhlmann, was project manager. The contract was to the effect that TSD group was to manage all the health and safety on site and, as far as the applicant was aware, it was doing so. He was not wilfully blind but, in his role as a director, he neglected to maintain control of managing and monitoring the site. This latter admission amounted to an acceptance of the allegation. 8. Mr\u00a0Kuhlmann in turn accepted his responsibility for the accident and pleaded guilty on 4\u00a0March 2020 to count 1, an offence of failing\u00a0to conduct an undertaking so as to ensure no exposure to risk to health and safety contrary to section 3(2) of the Act. 9. When Mr\u00a0March applied to vacate his plea on 19\u00a0December 2019, having dispensed with the services of his legal team, the judge checked, on the record, that he understood, when he entered the plea, what the necessary elements of the offence were and, it was clear that at both the time of plea and the time of the application, he maintained he had been guilty of a degree of neglect. 10. We have read the transcript of the whole hearing which clearly demonstrates this. In those circumstances, the grounds that Mr\u00a0March put forward for vacating his plea were bound to fail. Essentially these were that the prosecution had not complied fully with its disclosure duties in place before the plea was\u00a0entered, complaints about the investigation itself and the impact of poor representation. The alleged dilatory process of disclosure which continued after the plea had been entered, and failures therein, deprived the applicant of material upon which to challenge the prosecution case. The omissions alleged in the investigation included not pursuing others who may have been at fault. 11. In an email to the Court of Appeal Office on 25\u00a0March 2025, Mr\u00a0March stated that the point he has been trying to make is that the evidence which would have assisted him in a defence to the charge of negligence was not disclosed until after the application to vacate his plea. To this Court he has repeated his firmly held views that the investigation did not question the right people and allowed itself to be misled. The prosecution focused on his company rather than the project manager\u2019s organisation which had volunteered to manage health and safety on the site with a specific adviser in that field, Mr\u00a0Bee who should have been more rigorously pursued and found culpable. He also believed others had conspired to hide the truth and cover up what happened on the site and he argued that he did not make a fully informed plea. 12. The difficulty he faces is that although the court has a discretion to allow a defendant to vacate a guilty plea, the way in which that discretion may be exercised is well established. A simple change of mind because others might also be responsible is insufficient as are deficiencies in the disclosure process. If a plea is equivocal then it will not be a true plea of guilty. Even if not equivocal the court may allow a change of plea on other grounds where it is necessary for justice to be done. In R v Dodd (1981) 74 Cr App R 50, this Court confirmed that the Crown Court has a discretion to allow a defendant to change a plea of guilty to one of not guilty at any time up until sentence. There remains the residual discretion even if the plea of guilty was unequivocal; that discretion must be exercised judicially. Undue pressure to plead guilty, deficient legal advice or some other good reason may be sufficient grounds but the onus is on the party seeking to vacate the guilty plea to demonstrate that justice requires that this should be committed. 13. It is not necessary to recite the details of Mr\u00a0March\u2019s complaint in this short judgment or set out the exhaustive responses of the Crown, which again the applicant has in writing. But we have examined Mr\u00a0March\u2019s allegations and the history of the case. We are not persuaded that any shortcomings in the investigation or disclosure process at any stage were of such materiality that this applicant\u2019s plea of guilty was undermined. The judge who considered the application to vacate the plea explored the extent to which the applicant claimed to have been ignorant of relevant material. Similarly, we have examined the claims of poor representation by Mr\u00a0March\u2019s legal team and found them equally lacking in cogency. 14. None of the matters raised in this renewed application are fresh topics. None of them are capable, in our judgment, of clearing the central hurdle, namely the limited circumstances in which the defendant in criminal proceedings is entitled to vacate every entered guilty plea. The ruling refusing the application was grounded in the relevant law and demonstrated a conspicuously fair examination of the circumstances. 15. Having considered these applications independently for ourselves, we find ourselves in agreement with the Single\u00a0Judge. We recognise that adverse advice on appeal and the applicant\u2019s own medical diagnosis in 2021 have caused some delay in submitting the proposed grounds of appeal. Having found no merit in them it is not necessary to explore further why the appeal was lodged so late. The applications must be refused. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"kji-sep\" \/>\n<p class=\"kji-source-links\"><strong>Sources officielles :<\/strong> <a class=\"kji-source-link\" href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/ewca\/crim\/2025\/617\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"kji-license-note\"><em>Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>MRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBB: 1. Mr Kevin March (who is now aged 73) has attended today and explained his reasons for renewing applications for an extension of time of 1715 days, for leave to appeal against conviction and for a representation order following refusal, with reasons provided by the Single Judge. 2. On 15 May 2019, in the Crown Court at&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8463],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7875,9153,8058,7891,7925],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-579082","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-8463","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-applicant","kji_keyword-guilty","kji_keyword-health","kji_keyword-march","kji_keyword-offence","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.6 (Yoast SEO v27.6) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R v Kevin George March - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-kevin-george-march\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Kevin George March\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBB: 1. Mr Kevin March (who is now aged 73) has attended today and explained his reasons for renewing applications for an extension of time of 1715 days, for leave to appeal against conviction and for a representation order following refusal, with reasons provided by the Single Judge. 2. On 15 May 2019, in the Crown Court at...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-kevin-george-march\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"8 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-kevin-george-march\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-kevin-george-march\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Kevin George March - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-16T16:13:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-kevin-george-march\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-kevin-george-march\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-kevin-george-march\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"R v Kevin George March\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R v Kevin George March - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-kevin-george-march\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Kevin George March","og_description":"MRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBB: 1. Mr Kevin March (who is now aged 73) has attended today and explained his reasons for renewing applications for an extension of time of 1715 days, for leave to appeal against conviction and for a representation order following refusal, with reasons provided by the Single Judge. 2. On 15 May 2019, in the Crown Court at...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-kevin-george-march\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"8 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-kevin-george-march\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-kevin-george-march\/","name":"R v Kevin George March - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-16T16:13:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-kevin-george-march\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-kevin-george-march\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-kevin-george-march\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"R v Kevin George March"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/579082","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=579082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=579082"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=579082"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=579082"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=579082"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=579082"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=579082"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=579082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}