Perverting the Course of Justice: Proportionality Assessed by the Charge Faced at the Time, and a Brief Totality Statement Can Suffice

Introduction

In R v Uddin [2026] EWCA Crim 1122 (CACD), the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused a renewed application for leave to appeal sentence. The applicant had received a total of 9 years’ imprisonment for (i) causing serious injury by dangerous driving (Road Traffic Act 1988, s 1A), and (ii) doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice.

The sentencing context was severe: the driving incident caused life-threatening injuries to the applicant’s partner (referred to as Ms Challis in the judgment), and—crucially for the perverting count—the applicant initially faced an attempted murder charge (later not proceeded with). While remanded, he engaged in sustained contact designed to shape Ms Challis’s account and undermine the prosecution.

The key appellate issues were: (a) whether the perverting sentence was too high under the relevant Sentencing Council guideline; and (b) whether consecutive sentences failed properly to reflect totality, making the overall term manifestly excessive.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that:

  • The driving offence properly attracted the statutory maximum (5 years before plea credit), and the resulting 4½-year term after credit was unchallenged and justified.
  • The perverting offence was correctly assessed as category 1A (highest harm and culpability) and justified a 6-year starting point before guilty plea credit, yielding 4½ years.
  • In assessing proportionality for perverting the course of justice, it was legitimate—and important—to consider that the applicant was seeking to derail an attempted murder prosecution at the time much of the conduct occurred.
  • The fact that the complainant participated in the shifting narrative did not reduce seriousness; it could be viewed as aggravating, particularly given her eventual arrest.
  • The sentencing judge’s brief confirmation that totality had been considered was adequate; no more elaborate explanation was required.
  • Overall, 9 years consecutive was just and proportionate to the total criminality and not arguably manifestly excessive.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

R v Solarksa [2022] EWCA Crim 1732

The applicant relied on R v Solarksa [2022] EWCA Crim 1732 for the proposition that, when sentencing for perverting the course of justice, the court may consider whether the perverting sentence is disproportionate to the seriousness of the underlying offending. The Court of Appeal accepted that proportionality is relevant, but reframed the comparison: here, proportionality was not confined to the offence ultimately pleaded (dangerous driving causing serious injury), because the applicant’s interference with justice was undertaken in the shadow of a much graver accusation—attempted murder.

The Court also noted that Solarksa pre-dated the current Sentencing Council guideline for perverting the course of justice (in force from 1 October 2023), but treated proportionality as consistent with (and in part expressed through) the guideline’s focus on the seriousness of the underlying offence.

R v Bailey [2020] EWCA Crim 1719; [2021] 2 Cr App R (S) 15

On totality, the Court relied on R v Bailey [2020] EWCA Crim 1719; [2021] 2 Cr App R (S) 15, particularly at [34], for the proposition that a sentencing judge need not provide an extensive exposition of totality. A succinct statement that totality has been borne in mind can suffice, provided the resulting overall sentence is just and proportionate.

Legal Reasoning

(1) Guideline application to perverting the course of justice

The sentencing judge placed the perverting offence in category 1A:

  • Culpability (Level A): the conduct was sustained over months (very high volume of calls and messages) and related to an extremely serious underlying matter (attempted murder at the time; later a grave driving offence).
  • Harm (Category 1): serious impact on the administration of justice and substantial delay.

The guideline starting point for 1A is 4 years (range up to 7 years). The Court of Appeal endorsed the increase to a 6-year pre-plea figure because the guideline expressly allows upward movement where there are multiple culpability and harm factors. It further emphasised powerful aggravation: a prior extended sentence for grave violence and the fact the present offences were committed on licence.

(2) “Proportionality” and the relevant comparator

A central point of wider importance is the Court’s insistence on temporal realism: the seriousness of the “underlying offence” for perverting is not always determined solely by the eventual conviction/plea. Where the offender’s obstructive conduct is directed at avoiding conviction for the offence as charged and pursued at the time, that is a legitimate—and sometimes the primary—reference point when assessing seriousness and proportionality. Here, much of the conduct was geared to undermining an attempted murder prosecution.

(3) Victim/complainant participation

The Court rejected any mitigation based on Ms Challis being a “willing participant”. It treated the applicant’s success in influencing her as reinforcing seriousness, not reducing it—particularly as it contributed to her own arrest and to disruption of the prosecution.

(4) Totality and consecutive sentences

The Court accepted (and the applicant conceded) that consecutive sentences were appropriate given the distinct criminality: (i) grave dangerous driving with catastrophic harm; and (ii) a sustained attempt to undermine the justice process. Applying Bailey, the Court held that the judge’s brief indication that totality had been considered was sufficient. The controlling question on appeal was whether 9 years was just and proportionate overall; the Court answered yes.

Impact

  • Underlying-offence seriousness is assessed in context: for perverting the course of justice, the “underlying offence” may properly be evaluated by reference to the charge being confronted when the obstruction occurred (including very serious charges later dropped). This can justify higher culpability assessment and a higher sentence than would appear proportionate if compared only with the eventual plea.
  • High-volume “unsophisticated” contact can still be 1A: repeated calls/messages over months, aimed at shaping evidence, readily supports Level A culpability; “lack of sophistication” will not necessarily move the case out of the top tier where persistence, intensity, and objective are grave.
  • Complainant involvement is not a discount: where an offender induces or encourages a complainant to mislead investigators, the resulting contamination of evidence and procedural disruption may aggravate seriousness.
  • Totality reasoning need not be elaborate: a sentencing judge can satisfy the appellate court with a succinct statement that totality has been considered, so long as the resulting overall term is proportionate.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Perverting the course of justice: conduct intended to interfere with the justice process (for example, persuading a witness to give a false account, destroying evidence, or fabricating a narrative) so that a case is wrongly dropped, weakened, or decided on false information.
  • Category 1A (guideline language): the top bracket in the sentencing guideline, combining the highest culpability (how blameworthy the offender is) and greatest harm (impact on justice, delay, disruption).
  • Totality: when sentencing for multiple offences, the judge must ensure the overall sentence is not “too much” or “too little” for the combined wrongdoing. This does not prohibit consecutive sentences; it requires that the final total is proportionate.
  • Consecutive vs concurrent: consecutive terms are served one after the other; concurrent terms overlap and are served at the same time.
  • Credit for guilty plea: a reduction in sentence to reflect the plea, typically smaller where the plea is late (here, different reductions were applied on each count).

Conclusion

[2026] EWCA Crim 1122 confirms a robust approach to sentencing for perverting the course of justice under the current guideline: sustained efforts to manipulate a complainant’s account, especially in the context of an exceptionally serious charge being faced at the time, can properly attract a sentence towards the upper end of the range. The decision also reiterates that, on totality, appellate scrutiny focuses on the proportionality of the overall outcome; a judge’s brief express acknowledgment of totality will generally be adequate where the final term is justified.