Court emphasizes legal standards in tax evasion case: R v Lynne Henry, EWCA-Criminal 1359

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1359
Judgment on


The case of R v Lynne Henry, EWCA-Criminal 1359 [2023] EWCA Crim 1359, presents an appeal to the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) regarding a conviction and sentence for the fraudulent evasion of income tax. The judgment illustrates various legal principles, particularly to the elements of a guilty plea, sentencing guidelines, and the legal framework governing tax evasion in the United Kingdom.

Key Facts

Lynne Henry, a 68-year-old woman of previously good character, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Manchester to charges of tax evasion. As the owner of multiple rental properties, she failed to register for self-assessment or PAYE and did not pay income tax on £198,000 of rental income earned between 2012 and 2018. The sum in question concerning the unpaid income tax amounted to £24,446.60, though she later paid £8,043 into a “SAFE account” set up by HMRC. Henry received a suspended sentence of eight months’ imprisonment, with a requirement to undertake 80 hours of unpaid work.

The court applied several legal principles in adjudicating Henry’s appeal:

  1. Voluntary and Informed Plea: The court considered whether Henry’s guilty plea was made under duress or based on a false premise. The judgement reaffirmed the principle that a guilty plea must be voluntary and informed. In Henry’s case, the court found no evidence suggesting that her plea was anything but voluntary and based on her own admission of the facts.

  2. Sentencing Guidelines: The sentencing judge used the relevant guidelines to determine the initial sentence and applied reductions for mitigating factors, Henry’s age, and her guilty plea. This reflects the standard procedure where guideline ranges are adjusted to reflect case-specific factors.

  3. Extension of Time: The Court explained the principle that an extension of time to appeal may be granted if it would be in the interests of justice and there are arguable grounds for appeal. Henry’s request for an extension of time was contingent on this principle.

  4. Payments to HMRC: The court discussed the principle that all due payments and responses to warnings from HMRC should be taken into account as aggravating or mitigating factors during sentencing. Henry’s partial repayment was noted, but did not significantly alter the sentencing outcome.

  5. Basis of Plea: The judgment addressed the principle that the defendants may indicate a willingness to plead guilty based on a particular basis of the accusation charged. However, if this basis is unacceptable to the prosecution and not borne out by the evidence, sentencing may proceed on a different factual basis, as long as this basis is permissible under the law.


The Court of Appeal dismissed Henry’s applications for leave to appeal against both her conviction and sentence after finding no arguable grounds for appeal. The applications for extensions of time were also refused because no convincing reasons were provided to challenge the initial rulings.


The court’s judgment in R v Lynne Henry emphasizes the significance of a clear understanding of the legal standards surrounding guilty pleas, taxation law, and the implications of mitigation during sentencing. In Henry’s case, the Court of Appeal underscored the assessment of a plea’s voluntariness, the importance of adhering to sentencing guidelines, and the necessity of properly addressing all relevant tax regulations and financial conduct when engaged in rental activities. The dismissal of Henry’s appeal illustrates the stringent approach the courts take towards ensuring compliance with tax laws and the thorough consideration given to appeals against conviction and sentencing within the UK legal system.

Related Summaries