R v Matthew John Henegan

Leave to appeal against conviction or sentence may be refused where the proposed appeal has no prospect of success. An extension of time should likewise be refused where it would serve no purpose. The court may adopt the single judge’s reasons, including findings that proposed grounds are misconceived, unparticularised, irrelevant to the sentence under challenge or unsupported by the papers. The application for leave to rely on fresh evidence was also refused.

The applicant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on seven counts involving racially inflammatory material and possession of a document useful to a terrorist, contrary to provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 and the Terrorism Act 2000. He was sentenced in his absence to an extended sentence and a total custodial period of eight years and one month.

He renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence out of time, sought an extension of time and applied for leave to rely on fresh evidence. The single judge refused leave on 9 April 2025. The central issue was whether the proposed grounds disclosed any arguable basis for an appeal.

The applications were refused. The court agreed with the single judge, whose reasons it adopted, that the proposed appeals had no prospect of success.

1. Conviction and sentence. The complaint that counsel had failed to minimise culpability was misconceived. There was no inconsistency between arguing for acquittal at trial and taking a realistic view of culpability after conviction. The assessment of culpability as high for counts 1 to 6 and as category B for count 7 was unarguably open to the sentencing court.
2. Remaining grounds. Challenges to the pre-sentence report, reliance on previous convictions and medical understanding were unsupported or lacked particulars. An allegation that the jury had been incited or threatened was not a ground of appeal against sentence. No bias was discernible in the sentencing remarks. The general complaint about bias in the legal system and whether sentence had to be passed disclosed no valid ground. The further offensive material in the grounds had no discernible bearing on whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
3. Orders. Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused. The application for an extension of time was dismissed because it would serve no purpose. Leave to rely on fresh evidence was also refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2025] EWCA Crim 1753, renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence out of time, an extension of time and leave to rely on fresh evidence were refused.
• Central Criminal Court — The applicant was convicted on 10 December 2021 and sentenced on 2 March 2022 to a total sentence of 12 years and 1 month, comprising eight years and one month in custody and an extended licence period of four years.