R v Lynne Henry

An extension of time for renewing a criminal leave application may be granted where the delay is explained and there are arguable grounds such that hearing the appeal would be in the interests of justice. Leave should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable error. A disagreement about the factual basis of a guilty plea does not make the plea involuntary where it was informed and voluntary. Material unrelated to the charge and not used in the relevant calculations cannot found an arguable conviction appeal. At sentence, aggravating factors need not ordinarily be identified before the hearing, provided the judge has the relevant circumstances before the court.

The applicant, aged 68 and previously of good character, pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Manchester to fraudulent evasion of income tax. On 8 March 2022 she received an eight-month suspended custodial sentence with 80 hours of unpaid work. A single judge refused permission to appeal. She renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, together with an application to extend time. The central questions were whether the guilty plea was improperly obtained, whether alleged disclosure and prosecution errors created arguable grounds, and whether the sentencing judge had wrongly considered aggravating factors.

The court refused the application for an extension of time and refused leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.

1. Extension of time. The delay in lodging the renewal was short and, if there had been arguable grounds of appeal, the court would have extended time in the interests of justice. Since no arguable ground was identified, the extension was refused.
2. Conviction. The applicant had indicated a willingness to plead guilty on the basis that the tax loss was £6,848.20, while the prosecution maintained that it exceeded £24,000. The judge invited a written basis of plea, the applicant provided one, and the judge ultimately sentenced on that basis. Nothing suggested that the plea was other than informed and voluntary. A payment of approximately £168,000, raised during a money-laundering interview, did not form part of the evidence supporting the indictment and played no part in the calculation of unpaid tax. Complaints concerning that payment therefore disclosed no arguable conviction appeal.
3. Sentence. The prosecution opening made clear that four payments had been made into the HMRC SAFE account, and the judge was fully aware of the relevant circumstances. The applicant’s earlier PAYE registration was immaterial. There was no evidential support for the allegation that prosecution counsel had spoken so quietly that she could not hear. The failure to pay sums identified by her accountant and the failure to respond to warnings were legitimate aggravating factors. They did not need to be identified before the sentencing hearing, whose purpose included addressing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
4. The renewed applications were accordingly refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 7 November 2023, the renewed applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused.
• Crown Court at Manchester: The applicant pleaded guilty on 25 January 2022 and was sentenced on 8 March 2022 to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, with 80 hours of unpaid work.
• Single judge: Applications for leave to appeal were refused before renewal to the full court.