A man jailed for three years for making lewd advances toward a young girl on a bus is seeking to have his conviction overturned.

Counsel for Davaun Cox, 29, argued before Puisne Judge Stephen Hellman that Cox never formally entered a guilty plea before sentence was passed in Magistrates’ Court in May.

He was accused of harassing a 13-year-old riding the bus in March 2012, and initially denied the charge of intruding on the privacy of a girl.

Cox stood trial for the offence, but near the close of evidence in the case indicated that he wanted to change his plea.

However, yesterday the Supreme Court listened to courtroom recordings in which Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner was addressed by Cox toward the end of his trial.

Mr Warner could be heard telling Cox he intended to adjourn the matter so that Cox could obtain a lawyer before formally pleading guilty to the offence.

“By that time, you will have legal aid counsel who should be able to handle a guilty plea on short notice,” Cox was told.

On the recording, Mr Warner then added: “I’m not going to accept a plea today; I’m going to set it down for another day, and counsel will be here to make sure that you give an unequivocal plea.”

At Cox’s subsequent appearance, the Senior Magistrate told the court that Cox had told the court he was pleading guilty and that it would be recorded as such.

After listening to the recordings, Mr Justice Hellman told Crown counsel Takiyah Burgess that a plea of guilty had not in fact ever been taken.

“Mr Cox indicated that he wanted to change his plea to guilty with an explanation, and was told that the court was not taking it — but on the next occasion, the court had forgotten what had been said previously.”

Mr Justice Hellman said it appeared that the court had proceeded through to sentencing on the false assumption of an unequivocally guilty plea.

He told defence lawyer Kamal Worrell it was difficult to see how a conviction based on false premises could be permitted to stand.

Based on the recordings, he said, it appeared that “the magistrate expressly said he was not taking a plea, and on the next occasion he had forgotten”.

Mr Worrell also sought to challenge the conviction based on the wording of the initial charge put to Cox lacked the particulars included in the legislation, which specifies that the offence of intrusion on the privacy of a girl must take place in such a way “as to be likely to alarm or to insult or to offend her”.

Mr Worrell said a crucial element of the offence had been left out.

The defence is seeking to secure Cox’s immediate release, and Mr Worrell suggested his client would ultimately seek damages for his incarceration.

For now, he remains in jail pending Mr Justice Hellman’s ruling at a date yet to be set.