R v Lee Pardoe
[2024] EWCA Crim 740
R v Carl Toner
19 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 992
Court of Appeal
A man pleaded guilty to trying to get a child to have sex with him online. He was sentenced to prison. He waited a very long time to appeal his conviction and sentence. The court said his reasons for the delay weren't good enough, and that he had no good grounds to appeal anyway, so they refused his request.
Key Facts
- •Carl Toner pleaded guilty to attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity.
- •The offence involved online conversations with individuals he believed to be 13-year-old girls.
- •There was no evidence the girls were real; the charge was an attempt.
- •Toner was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment and a 10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
- •He applied for an extension of time to appeal his conviction and sentence, 891 and 911 days late respectively.
- •The application was significantly delayed due to homelessness and job searching after release.
- •His appeal grounds included claims of inadequate legal counsel, insufficient prosecution justification, and an unfair trial.
Legal Principles
A defendant who pleads guilty makes a formal admission of guilt, and generally cannot later deny that admission.
R v Asiedu [2015] EWCA Crim 714
Outcomes
Leave to appeal refused.
The delay in applying for leave was inadequately explained. The grounds for appeal lacked merit; the evidence against Toner was overwhelming. His guilty plea was considered unequivocal and the sentence was within the guidelines and not manifestly excessive.