R v Neil Carter

On 5 August 2025 in the Crown Court at Maidstone before Mr Recorder Nelson, the applicant was convicted of three counts of attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity. On 24 October 2025 he was sentenced by the Recorder concurrently on each count to a suspended sentence order of 2 years' imprisonment suspended for 2 years and ordered to pay a fine of £500. He renews his application for an extension of time of 44 days in which to seek leave to appeal against conviction following refusal by the Single Judge.

On 4 April 2017 police arrested a man called John Gonzales Lago. His phone was seized and on later analysis it was found to contain indecent images of children, and a series of WhatsApp messages between it and a telephone number ending 7176. The messages were dated between 8 January 2017 and 15 February 2017. The phone 7176 was one that was solely used by the applicant at all relevant times.

Lago had invented a character called "Tash", a 13-year-old girl, with whom the applicant had been communicating. Within the messages the applicant asked, "How old are you?" to which Tash replied, "13". There was a later comment from the applicant, "Don’t forget you’re only 13. I’m 67. If I get arrested, I would go to prison."

On 12 May 2017 police attended the applicant's home address. He provided his mobile phone. He was taken to Maidstone police station and interviewed. In interview he stated among other things, "I have never arranged to meet with anyone who was underage", and said that he had never persuaded a child to engage in sexual activity. He accepted that his telephone ended in 7176 and accepted that the phone that he handed to the police was the one he used. He confirmed that he was the only user. He said he had asked Tash for a photograph and was hoping for someone who was between 18 and 20 years old. He agreed that she said she was 13, but said that people on chat logs lied. He said he did not know why he had carried on when informed she was 13. He said she looked older in a photograph and even though he discussed sex with her, he would never have met her. He also said it could have been a man for all he knew. He reiterated that he did not believe that she was a 13-year-old girl.

In his Defence Case Statement and in evidence the applicant denied the offences. He accepted that he had sent the relevant messages to Tash, but denied that he knew or believed that she was 13 years of age. He stated that he had met her on a chat called "ChatIB". Her profile had indicated that she was in her 30s and she had started the sexualised chat. It was her suggestion to move the conversation to WhatsApp and she had provided him with her number. Once on WhatsApp he started to think that she was not the person she had purported to be on ChatIB but he continued the conversation with her to find out who she was and to report her to ChatIB.

The applicant's trial lawyers made inquiries with the prosecution about disclosure of ChatIB logs but the prosecution did not investigate ChatIB.

At trial there was no dispute that the applicant sent and received the messages. The issue for the jury was the applicant's knowledge or belief about Tash's age and whether his belief that she was over 16 was a reasonable one.

In his grounds of appeal the applicant essentially makes four submissions. We shall deal with each of them in turn. First, the applicant states that despite being advised of his legal rights and that he was entitled to free legal advice, no-one attended to assist him in interview. The record of the applicant's interview confirms that the applicant was advised about his right to free legal representation at the beginning of his interview. The written interview record shows that the applicant did not have a legal representative present at his interview. It also says that “legal representation was accepted by the defendant”. It is unclear what was meant by this observation but the applicant took no issue at trial about the absence of a legal representative. No application was made to exclude the interview. It is too late to raise this issue now and the applicant has, in any event, failed to demonstrate that he was in any way prejudiced at trial by the absence of a legal representative at his interview. This ground of appeal is not reasonably arguable and is refused.

Secondly, the applicant states that his trial counsel told him that it was “best to plead guilty” and that he did not stand a chance in front of the jury. He says that his original barrister had told him that he had nothing to worry about.

There is no evidence before us to suggest that trial counsel gave improper or incompetent advice. That he may have received different earlier advice from someone else is nothing to the point. The documents before us demonstrate that the applicant's trial counsel took proper care to represent his interests and conducted the trial appropriately. We can see no fault in trial counsel's conduct of the case. The applicant's contentions to the contrary have no substance. This ground of appeal is not reasonably arguable and is refused.

Thirdly, the applicant complains both in his written grounds and in his brief oral submissions to us today that there was no evidence put before the jury of his four hours of online communications with Tash on ChatIB before his communications with her on WhatsApp. As we understand it, the applicant submits that, had the jury seen the ChatIB communications they would have supported his defence. He says that ChatIB was a sight for over 18 year olds and Tash was talking in a sexual way that was manifestly inconsistent with her being a 13 year old. He says that this demonstrates that he could not himself have thought she was a 13 year old and the jury would have inferred as much.

The applicant's trial solicitors have in correspondence with this Court confirmed that in the applicant's own interests a tactical decision was made to proceed to trial without sight of the ChatIB logs. This sort of tactical decision does not begin to demonstrate that the solicitors or counsel failed to serve the applicant's interests. Nor has the applicant even now produced the logs for this Court to consider.

More importantly, there was strong evidence in the WhatsApp messages that the applicant did believe that he was communicating with a 13 year old. The messages were forceful evidence against the applicant. The jury did not believe his evidence to the contrary. This ground of appeal cannot possibly demonstrate that the applicant's conviction was unsafe. Fourthly, the applicant contends that his lawyers failed to obtain medical records which would have shown he was unable to have sex, so he had no reason to want to meet anyone for sex. However, the documents before us show that the applicant did not raise medical or health issues with his solicitors or trial counsel. In his summary of the evidence to the jury the Recorder reminded the jury of the applicant's evidence in cross-examination that:

As trial counsel points out in her response to the applicant's criticisms, this evidence is inconsistent with his assertion, made now in this Court, that he was not capable of engaging in sexual activity. This ground of appeal is not reasonably arguable and it is refused.

We have concluded that none of the grounds of appeal that the applicant advances are reasonably arguable. The conviction is not arguably unsafe. The renewed application for an extension of time is refused, as it would serve no purpose, and we would refuse the renewed application for leave to appeal.