(vi) the appellant was not legally represented at the sentence hearing (nor in the magistrates' court) and it was therefore possible that all the mitigating factors were not presented to the court. 18. In the course of this hearing Mr Lowe has helpfully and economically sought to develop those arguments, but has concentrated his attention on the fifth of the points that were raised in the grounds of appeal. In terms of the cases upon which reliance is placed, we have been referred to R v Sheppard & Whittle [2010] EWCA Crim 65 and also R v Bonehill-Paine [2016] EWCA Crim 980. In terms of the former case, that involved two appellants who were convicted after a trial of a number of charges in respect of their publishing racially inflammatory material. The offenders in that case worked collaboratively to run a website on which they published grossly offensive material directed to stirring up racial hatred towards various racial groups and most particularly people described in the judgment as 'Jewish and black'. One particular focus on the material was by way of denying the holocaust. The Court commented that the point on appeal that impressed them most was the absence of evidence as how many people saw the material or the consequences of them having seen it, although the Court did identify that the site received several thousand hits per day. The Court commented that there was no evidence of anyone being corrupted by the material although it was recognised that evidence of that being the case was unlikely to be forthcoming. Sheppard was referred to as a repeat offender, with offences spanning a not inconsiderable period and with some being committed whilst on bail. Despite those factors the Court concluded that a total sentence of 4 years 6 months was too long and reduced the term to 3 years and 6 months. With regard to Whittle it was noted that his involvement was for a shorter period, and that he was of previous good character. On the other hand, however, he was said to be the 'brains' behind the website, feeding the material to Sheppard for his co-defendant to post. The sentence imposed upon him was reduced from 2 years to 18 months. 19. The Court in Bonehill-Paine applied Sheppard and Whittle when considering a sentence of 3 years 4 months imposed upon that appellant following a trial in respect of charges of stirring up racial hatred. The offender in that case had published a post on his own internet site urging people to attend what was referred to as an "anti-Jewification event". The offender encouraged others to print and distribute a poster that was designed to encourage racial hatred. He also posted material on Twitter and that in turn was reposted by others. The anti-Jewish event that the appellant sought to promote did take place but passed off peacefully, albeit in the context of a significant investment of time and resources by the police. The appellant had prior relevant convictions, one of which involved him publishing false messages claiming that a public house would not serve servicemen for fear of antagonising the local Muslim population. On another occasion the appellant published material that falsely asserted certain political opponents were paedophiles. 20. The Court identified the following factors as being relevant: (i) the nature of the publication and the intent behind it; SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE