appellant, defence counsel was satisfied that the appellant
understood that the judge would make the final decision about
sentence even though counsel would be jointly suggesting a custodial sentence of 12 months, less pre-disposition custody, and
a period of probation.
 It was the evidence of trial counsel that the appellant
understood the joint submission and instructed him to proceed.
He was unconcerned about the immigration implications because
he planned to return to India.
 Trial counsel did not discuss with the appellant any apportionment of the time spent in pre-disposition custody among the
various offences, so that with credit, the sentence imposed would
not exceed six months in custody. A sentence under six months
was simply impossible according to trial counsel because of the
appellant’s record and the fact that he committed the offences
while bound by the terms of several probation orders.
The arguments on appeal
 The appellant says that his plea of guilty should be set
aside because it was not fully informed. He did not know that he
would have no right of appeal from the deportation order because
his sentence, including credit for time spent in pre-disposition
custody, exceeded six months.
 In the appellant’s submission, the mere fact that he understood the general nature of the warning provided by the Immigration Enforcement Officer was not sufficient to render his plea
of guilty informed. What is more, counsel had a duty to advise the
appellant specifically that a jail sentence that exceeded six
months deprived him of the right to appeal any deportation order
made as a result of that conviction and sentence.
 The respondent rejects any suggestion that the appellant’s
guilty plea was uninformed because he lacked specific information about the availability of appellate review to challenge
 According to the respondent, the record of trial proceedings as amplified by the fresh evidence demonstrates that the
appellant knew that there were immigration consequences of his
convictions. And he knew from what the Immigration Enforcement Officer had told him the day before he pleaded guilty, that if
he received a custodial sentence of six months or more, he would
lose his right to appeal the deportation order. The appellant’s
essential complaint is that he relied on information provided
by fellow inmates that time spent in pre-disposition custody
was not included in the sentence calculations for immigration