Carter, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 5 August 2025, at the Crown Court at The City before Judge Nelson, the Defendant was convicted of three counts of attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity. On 24 October 2025 the Defendant was sentenced to concurrent suspended imprisonment terms of 2 years (each suspended for 2 years) and ordered to pay a fine of £500. The Defendant (hereafter "Applicant") renewed an application for an extension of time of 44 days in which to seek leave to appeal against conviction following refusal by a Single Judge.

In April–May 2017, police arrested Person A. Analysis of Person A's seized phone revealed indecent images of children and WhatsApp messages between that phone and a number identified in evidence as the Applicant's phone ("phone ending [phone ending 7176]"). The messages (8 January–15 February 2017) included communications with a fictitious persona ("Person B") described as a 13‑year‑old. On 12 May 2017 police attended the Applicant's home, seized the Applicant's phone and interviewed him. The Applicant accepted ownership and sole use of the phone but denied arranging to meet anyone underage or persuading a child to engage in sexual activity, stating that chat participants lie about age and that he thought the correspondent might be an adult.

At trial the Applicant accepted sending the messages; the jury's issue was whether the Applicant knew or believed Person B was 13 and whether any belief she was over 16 was reasonable. The Applicant was convicted. He now seeks extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, renewing grounds previously considered by the Single Judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction should be granted (44 days).
2. Whether the Applicant's convictions are arguably unsafe on grounds that: (a) he had no legal representative at police interview; (b) trial counsel gave improper/defective advice; (c) failure to admit Platform A (ChatIB) logs deprived him of exculpatory evidence; and (d) counsel failed to obtain medical records showing incapacity for sexual activity.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• No one attended to assist him in interview despite being told he was entitled to free legal advice.
• Trial counsel told him it was "best to plead guilty" and that he would not stand a chance before a jury; earlier advice had been more favourable.
• No evidence was put before the jury of four hours of prior communications on Platform A that would have supported his defence that the correspondent was an adult and that he was attempting to identify/report the account.
• Lawyers failed to obtain medical records that would have shown he was incapable of sexual activity, undermining motive to meet anyone for sex.

Prosecution

The Crown did not attend and was not represented.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court, delivered by Judge Farbey, considered each of the Applicant's grounds in turn and applied the following analysis drawn from the material before it:

• Interview representation: The interview record showed the Applicant was advised of the right to free legal representation, he handed over the phone and accepted sole use. The written record stated "legal representation was accepted by the defendant" though that comment was unclear. The Applicant raised no issue at trial nor applied to exclude the interview; the point is now too late and no prejudice at trial was demonstrated. The ground was found not reasonably arguable.
• Alleged improper advice from trial counsel: There was no evidence of improper or incompetent advice. Documents showed trial counsel represented the Applicant's interests properly and conducted the trial appropriately. Earlier, different advice from another lawyer did not prove incompetence. The ground lacked substance and was not reasonably arguable.
• Absence of Platform A (ChatIB) logs: Defence solicitors made a tactical decision to proceed to trial without those logs; the Applicant had not produced the logs on this application. More importantly, the WhatsApp messages themselves provided strong evidence that the Applicant believed he was communicating with a 13‑year‑old, and the jury rejected his contrary evidence. The absence of the Platform A logs, given these facts and lack of production, could not render the convictions unsafe.
• Failure to obtain medical records: The Applicant had not raised medical or health issues with his solicitors or counsel before trial. His trial testimony (as summarised to the jury) was inconsistent with the claimed incapacity. On that basis the court found the ground not reasonably arguable.
• Disposition of extension/leave: Having concluded none of the grounds were reasonably arguable and the convictions were not arguably unsafe, the court determined that granting an extension of time would serve no purpose and that leave to appeal would be refused.

Holding and Implications

The renewed application for an extension of time and the renewed application for leave to appeal are refused.

Direct effect: the Applicant's convictions and sentence stand; no extension of time or leave to appeal will be granted. The opinion does not purport to establish any new precedent beyond the application of established appellate principles to the facts in this case.