R v Neil Carter

An extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction should be refused where the proposed grounds are not reasonably arguable, the conviction is not arguably unsafe, and an extension would serve no purpose. A failure to have legal representation at a police interview will not justify intervention where the issue was not raised at trial, no exclusion application was made, and no prejudice is shown. Complaints about counsel require evidence of improper or incompetent advice. A tactical decision not to rely on potentially supportive material does not itself establish incompetence, particularly where the material is not produced and the existing evidence is strong. A new contention inconsistent with the trial evidence cannot make the ground reasonably arguable.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Maidstone of three counts of attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity and received concurrent suspended sentences of two years’ imprisonment and a fine. He renewed an application, previously refused by a Single Judge, for a 44-day extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction.

The prosecution case relied on WhatsApp messages with a person presented as a 13-year-old girl. The issues at trial included the applicant’s knowledge or belief about her age and whether any belief that she was over 16 was reasonable. The proposed grounds concerned the absence of legal representation at interview, alleged incompetent advice from trial counsel, the absence of earlier ChatIB communications, and medical evidence. The central question was whether any ground was reasonably arguable and whether the conviction was arguably unsafe.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for a 44-day extension of time was refused. None of the proposed grounds was reasonably arguable, the conviction was not arguably unsafe, and an extension would serve no purpose. The court stated that it would also refuse the renewed application for leave to appeal.
2. Police interview. The applicant had been advised of his right to free legal representation, although no representative attended. He had not challenged that absence at trial and had made no application to exclude the interview. The record was unclear as to one reference to acceptance of legal representation, but the applicant failed in any event to show prejudice. The ground was therefore not reasonably arguable.
3. Trial counsel. There was no evidence that counsel had given improper or incompetent advice. The documents showed that counsel had taken proper care of the applicant’s interests and conducted the trial appropriately. The fact that an earlier adviser may have given different advice did not advance the complaint.
4. ChatIB material. The decision to proceed to trial without the ChatIB logs had been a tactical decision made in the applicant’s interests. It did not demonstrate a failure by the lawyers to serve those interests. The applicant had not produced the logs even on appeal. More importantly, the WhatsApp messages provided strong evidence that he believed he was communicating with a 13-year-old, and the jury rejected his contrary account. The suggested omission could not render the conviction unsafe.
5. Medical evidence. The applicant had not raised medical or health issues with his lawyers. His present assertion that he was incapable of sexual activity was inconsistent with his trial evidence that he wanted to meet a person of lawful age for sex. This ground was also not reasonably arguable.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 23 June 2026, the renewed application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The court stated that it would also refuse renewed leave. [2026] EWCA Crim 927
2. Single Judge: The applicant’s original application was refused, leading to the renewal before the Court of Appeal.
3. Crown Court at Maidstone: The applicant was convicted on 5 August 2025 and sentenced on 24 October 2025 to concurrent suspended sentence orders of two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and a £500 fine.