WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
NCN: [2025] EWCA Crim 1753 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT (HIS HONOUR JUDGE LICKLEY KC) (T202007361) CASE NO:202303946/202303947 B1 |
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before:
LORD JUSTICE DOVE
MR JUSTICE LAVENDER
THE RECORDER OF MANCHESTER
(His Honour Judge Dean KC)
REX
v
MATTHEW JOHN HENEGAN
__________
Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________
Non-counsel application
_________
APPROVED JUDGMENT
MR JUSTICE LAVENDER:
The applicant renews applications for leave to appeal out of time against both conviction and sentence. He also seeks leave to rely on fresh evidence.
On 10 December 2021 the applicant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of the following offences:
count 1, publishing written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, intending or likely to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986;
count 2, distributing visual and sound material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, intending or likely to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 21(1) of the Public Order Act 1986;
count 3, distributing written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, intending or likely to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986;
count 4, publishing written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, intending or likely to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986;
count 5, distributing sound material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, intending or likely to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 21(1) of the Public Order Act 1986;
count 6, possessing written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, intending or likely to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 23(1) of the Public Order Act 1986; and
count 7, possession of a document or record of use to a terrorist, contrary to section 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
On 2 March 2022 the defendant was sentenced in his absence to a total of 12 years and 1 month, consisting of a total custodial period of 8 years and 1 month and an extended licence period of 4 years. This was made up of an extended sentence on count 7 of 7 years and 1 month, comprising a custodial term of 3 years and 1 month and an extended licence period of 4 years, together with a consecutive sentence of 5 years' imprisonment on count 1 and various other concurrent sentences.
In March 2020 a number of residents of St Neots reported receiving leaflets through their doors which were anti-Semitic and offensive. The leaflets referred to pages on the internet. Police investigated the internet links given and found video and audio files posted by the applicant which contained racially inflammatory content. Police later attended the applicant's home and found copies of the same leaflet and other leaflets. Also found in the applicant’s home were SD cards containing the same files as had been posted on the internet, other material of a similarly racially offensive nature and a document entitled "How to make armour piercing ammo".
The applicant had been diagnosed as having Asperger's Syndrome, an Autism Spectrum Disorder, features of which include problems with social interactions and niche interests. It was unlikely that the applicant could appreciate how distressing his views might be to others.
He was aged 36 at conviction and 37 at sentence. At the time of sentence, he had one conviction in 2017 for attempting, causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity, for which he had been sentenced to 16 weeks' imprisonment. The applicant was assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm to members of the public as well as specific groups of people and his mother.
The applicant has filed lengthy submissions. We do not attempt to summarise them, but we have considered them carefully.
In refusing leave to appeal against conviction and sentence the single judge gave detailed reasons why he considered that the applicant's proposed appeal was unarguable. We do not repeat those reasons but a copy of them will be annexed to the transcript of this judgment.
Having carefully considered the applicant's submissions and his proposed grounds of appeal, we agree with the single judge that, for the reasons which he gave, the proposed appeal has no prospect of success.
Accordingly, we refuse leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. We also dismiss the application for an extension of time, which would serve no purpose, and we dismiss the application for leave to rely on fresh evidence.
ANNEXURE TO JUDGMENT
REASONS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE FOR REFUSING LEAVE TO APPEAL
9 APRIL 2025
“REASONS FOR DECISION
I have considered the papers in this case and the grounds of appeal as set out in the Form NG. There would appear to be around 8 grounds. Dealing with each in turn:
Ground 1 seeks to blame your Barrister for “not picking culpabilities at the minimum available” having argued your innocence at trial. This point is misconceived. There is no contradiction between arguing for your acquittal at trial and taking a realistic view of culpability post-conviction. Culpability in this case was correctly assessed as being “high” (Cat A) for Counts 1 to 6 and Cat B for Count 7. It is unarguable that culpability ought to have been assessed at any lesser level in either case.
Grounds 2, 3 and 4 appears to challenge the content of the Pre-Sentence Report as worthless and the reliance upon past convictions as misleading. No particulars are provided. The allegation is baseless.
Ground 5 asserts a lack of “medical understanding”. Once again, no particulars are provided, and the contention is without foundation.
Ground 6 suggests that the Jury was “incited and threatened” to convict. This is not a ground of appeal against sentence.
Ground 7 suggests that the Judge was biased in his sentencing remarks. No such bias is discernible.
Ground 8 appears to be a general complaint as to the bias in the legal system and queries whether a sentence has to be passed at all. One only has to state the ground to recognise its complete lack of validity.
The Form NG continues with a further 13 pages of offensive diatribe, none of which, on my reading, has any discernible bearing on whether the sentence passed was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
The Grounds of Appeal are wholly without merit. Leave is refused. In the circumstances, an extension of time would be utterly futile and is also refused.”
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the
proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk
