REGINA v Henderson

Factual and Procedural Background

On 29th June 2010, the Appellant Henderson was recorded by a speed camera driving a lorry at 49 miles per hour in a 40 miles per hour zone in Lincolnshire. A notice of intended prosecution was sent to his employer, who confirmed Henderson was the driver. Subsequently, Henderson responded by falsely claiming he had lent the vehicle to Metcalfe, who then accepted responsibility and paid a fixed penalty fine with penalty points on his licence. Police later investigated and obtained tachograph data revealing Henderson was the actual driver. Both Henderson and Metcalfe were arrested and pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice at the Crown Court at Lincoln on 25th March 2011. Each was sentenced by the Recorder to six months' imprisonment and disqualified from driving for 12 months. Both appellants applied for leave to appeal, which was granted and referred to the full court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the custodial sentences of six months imposed on the appellants for perverting the course of justice were manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the period of driving disqualification imposed on each appellant was appropriate in the circumstances.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The appellants conceded that an immediate custodial sentence was inevitable for offences of this nature absent exceptional circumstances.
• They contended that the six-month custodial sentence was manifestly excessive and that a shorter sentence would be equally effective as a deterrent and punishment.
• Reference was made to section 153(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the principle from R v Ollerenshaw that short prison sentences should be as short as reasonably possible.
• Regarding disqualification, it was submitted that Henderson’s disqualification period should not exceed the six months applicable for the speeding offence, considering the severe employment consequences.
• For Metcalfe, it was argued that disqualification was unnecessary as he had already been penalised by the custodial sentence and penalty points, and that disqualification would unduly affect his employment prospects.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Ollerenshaw [1999] 1 Cr App R (S) 65	Principle that short prison sentences should be as short as reasonably possible.	The court considered this principle relevant in reducing the custodial sentences from six to four months, given the appellants' circumstances.
R v Waring [2006] 1 Cr App R (S) 9	Authority supporting the appropriateness of driving disqualification in cases involving attempts to evade penalty points.	Supported the decision to impose disqualification on Henderson but informed the court's consideration of the appropriate length of disqualification.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the serious nature of the offence of perverting the course of justice, emphasizing that it undermines the criminal justice system and the deterrent purpose of the driving points system. The Recorder’s original sentencing reflected this by imposing custodial sentences and disqualifications. However, the court noted that the offence was a considered act rather than impulsive, with both appellants fully admitting their guilt and having good character profiles, especially Metcalfe with no previous convictions.

While accepting the necessity of immediate custody in such cases, the court found the starting point of nine months suggested by the Recorder was too high for these appellants. Applying the principle that short sentences should be as short as reasonably possible, the court reduced the custodial sentences to four months, allowing full credit for guilty pleas.

Regarding disqualification, the court held it was appropriate to disqualify Henderson, whose objective was to avoid mandatory disqualification under the totting up procedure. However, the period was reduced to six months to align with the penalty for the speeding offence and to mitigate severe employment consequences. For Metcalfe, the court found disqualification unnecessary since he had already incurred penalty points and a custodial sentence, and disqualification would disproportionately affect his employment.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeals in part by reducing the custodial sentences from six months to four months for both appellants. It also reduced the driving disqualification period for Henderson from 12 months to six months and quashed the disqualification order for Metcalfe entirely.

The direct effect is a mitigation of sentences and driving disqualification periods for the appellants without setting new legal precedent. The decision reflects a careful balancing of the seriousness of perverting the course of justice with the individual circumstances and the principle of making short custodial sentences as brief as reasonably possible.