Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application by His Majesty's Attorney General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for leave to refer a sentence considered unduly lenient. The Defendant pleaded guilty on 3rd February 2023 in the Crown Court at Cambridge to offences including perverting the course of justice, dangerous driving, and causing criminal damage. The Defendant had prior convictions for battery and breach of a community order.
On 24th March 2023, the Defendant was sentenced in the Crown Court at Huntingdon to a suspended sentence order totaling 24 months' imprisonment suspended for two years, with 200 hours of unpaid work, a driving disqualification, compensation payments, forfeiture of drugs, and a victim surcharge.
The offending arose from an incident on 21st August 2021 when the Defendant drove a vehicle dangerously into a residential property causing significant damage and subsequently attempted to pervert the course of justice by falsely reporting a burglary and theft of his vehicle. The police investigation, including forensic evidence, contradicted the Defendant's account. The Defendant initially pleaded not guilty but later pleaded guilty to most charges following negotiation.
The sentencing judge found exceptional circumstances warranting suspension of the custodial sentence, citing the Defendant's suicide attempt, caring responsibilities for a disabled partner and his daughter, and recent relevant case law.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the overall sentence of 24 months' imprisonment was unduly lenient in length.
- Whether the suspension of the custodial sentence for the offence of perverting the course of justice was appropriate, given the established principle that such sentences should only be suspended in exceptional circumstances.
- Whether, if the sentence was unduly lenient, the court should exercise its discretion to order immediate custody or allow the suspended sentence to stand.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The sentence should have exceeded 24 months, as suspension is only permitted for sentences of two years or less.
- Even if 24 months was appropriate, the sentence for perverting the course of justice should not have been suspended except in exceptional circumstances, due to the serious nature of the offence.
- The suspension rendered the sentence unduly lenient.
Appellee's Arguments
- The total sentence was appropriate and proportionate, reflecting all offending conduct.
- The sentencing judge was entitled to find exceptional circumstances justifying suspension.
- If the sentence was unduly lenient, the court should exercise discretion not to impose immediate custody, considering developments since sentencing.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Davies [2013] EWCA Crim 671 |
Sentencing for perverting the course of justice involving false reports and duration of offending. |
Used to compare the seriousness and impact of the offence; the court noted the Defendant's offence involved more damage and impact. |
| Attorney General's Reference No 93 of 2009 [2009] EWCA Crim 1375 |
Principle that perverting the course of justice almost always requires immediate custody unless exceptional circumstances exist. |
Confirmed the seriousness of the offence and the usual requirement for immediate custody. |
| R v Tunney [2006] EWCA Crim 2066 |
Factors in sentencing perverting the course of justice: seriousness, persistence, and effect. |
Guided the court’s understanding of sentencing principles for the offence. |
| R v Abdulwahab [2018] EWCA Crim 1399 |
Sentencing principles for perverting the course of justice emphasizing the offence’s gravity and usual custodial sentence. |
Supported the principle that immediate custody is the norm. |
| R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 |
Consideration of prison population pressures and discretion in suspending sentences. |
Referenced by the sentencing judge as part of exceptional circumstances justifying suspension; the court acknowledged its relevance to discretion. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first addressed whether the overall sentence length was unduly lenient. Considering the serious nature of the underlying offences, the persistence of the Defendant’s conduct over 15 months, and relevant comparable authorities and guidelines for dangerous driving and criminal damage, the court concluded that the 24-month sentence after discount was appropriate and not unduly lenient.
The central issue was whether the suspension of the custodial sentence for perverting the course of justice was justified. The court reaffirmed the established principle that this offence strikes at the heart of the justice system and almost invariably requires immediate custody unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The sentencing judge found exceptional circumstances based on the Defendant’s suicide attempt, caring responsibilities for a disabled partner and his daughter, and recent case law acknowledging pressures on the prison system. However, the court found that suspending the sentence was unduly lenient given the seriousness and duration of the offending.
Despite this, the court exercised its discretion not to order immediate custody, taking into account the Defendant’s compliance with the suspended sentence order, partial completion of unpaid work, compensation payments, and the broader circumstances. The court thus allowed the sentence to stand without interference.
Holding and Implications
The court granted leave to refer the sentence and found the sentence to be unduly lenient because the suspension of the custodial sentence for perverting the course of justice was not justified by exceptional circumstances.
However, exercising its discretion, the court declined to order immediate custody, allowing the suspended sentence to remain in effect. This decision directly affects the Defendant by upholding the current sentence but does not establish new precedent or alter established legal principles.