Fox, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 provisions apply, anonymising the victim in this case. On 9 August 2024, in the Crown Court at The City, the Appellant (aged 37) changed her pleas to guilty on two counts of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice contrary to common law. On 9 October 2024, the Appellant was sentenced to 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment concurrent on each count, with a 10% credit for the guilty plea. The Registrar referred the application for leave to appeal against sentence to the Full Court and granted representation by junior counsel.

The offending arose from events beginning 23 July 2022, when the Appellant's brother, Defendant, was charged with the rape of the Complainant. The Defendant was remanded in custody awaiting trial. The Defendant, with the involvement of his mother (co-defendant), the Appellant, and a cousin, engaged in a sustained course of conduct attempting to pervert the course of justice by pressuring the Complainant to withdraw her complaint and change her account.

The Appellant's involvement had two stages, each corresponding to a separate count on the indictment. The first involved passing a videoed account from the Defendant to the cousin ("the solicitor") who then attempted to contact and pressure the Complainant and her ex-boyfriend through calls and texts. The second stage involved the Appellant directly contacting the Complainant via Facebook Messenger with messages mixing self-pity and attempts to manipulate the Complainant’s perception of events, including false statements about CCTV footage and the nature of the incident, aiming to induce the Complainant to change her account.

The Complainant was frightened and distressed by the persistent contact and pressure. The Appellant admitted in interview to contacting the Complainant but denied knowledge of the cousin's involvement or that an offence was being committed. The victim impact statement detailed significant fear, anxiety, and disruption to the Complainant's life, including moving house and feeling guilty due to the Appellant’s actions.

The Appellant had previous good character, was a single mother caring for three children, and suffered from various health conditions and mental health issues. A pre-sentence report recommended a community-based sentence, but the sentencing judge imposed immediate custody due to the seriousness of the offending and the late guilty plea.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 2 years and 8 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive given the Appellant's personal mitigation, health, and family circumstances.
2. Whether a sentence capable of suspension should have been imposed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence failed to adequately reflect the Appellant's personal mitigation, including previous good character, ill-health, and the impact of immediate custody on her three young children.
• The Appellant had not committed any other offences in the two years following the commission of these offences.
• The sentence should have been capable of suspension and such a sentence should have been passed.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214	Guidance on the impact of custodial sentences on family life, balancing legitimate sentencing aims against interference with family life, particularly regarding care of children.	The court noted the sentencing judge did not expressly refer to Petherick but was satisfied he bore the guidance well in mind. The court applied Petherick principles in assessing proportionality of custodial sentence given the care arrangements for the children.
R v Rebecca Rescorl [2021] EWCA Crim 2005	Consideration of information about care arrangements for children when sentencing a primary carer.	The court observed that the judge had less information than ideal about care arrangements but that satisfactory arrangements were in place. The case was referenced in the context of assessing impact on children.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasised the seriousness of the offence of perverting the course of justice, particularly when linked to a grave underlying offence such as rape. The court recognised the vulnerability of victims of sexual offences and the crucial importance of their truthful testimony for the criminal justice system. The Appellant engaged in a sustained course of conduct aimed at dissuading the Complainant from assisting the police, exacerbating the victim's distress.

The sentencing judge had carefully considered the Appellant's personal mitigation, including her health, family circumstances, and the pre-sentence report. However, the judge found that the Appellant had lost the benefit of significant mitigation by delaying her guilty plea until the last moment despite overwhelming evidence.

The court acknowledged that the sentencing judge considered the impact on the Appellant's children, although the information about care arrangements was not complete. The court was satisfied that the judge was aware of and applied the principles set out in relevant case law regarding the balancing of custodial sentences and family life interference.

Applying the principles from Petherick, the court found that the interference with family life caused by the custodial sentence was lawful, proportionate, and justified given the gravity of the offending. The court rejected the argument that a suspended sentence would have been appropriate, noting the serious nature of the conduct and the necessity of immediate custody in such cases.

Ultimately, the court found the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor erroneous in principle.

Holding and Implications

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is REFUSED.

The court held that the custodial sentence of 2 years and 8 months was appropriate and proportionate given the seriousness of the offending, the late guilty plea, and the impact on the victim and public interest in deterring such conduct. Although the Appellant's personal mitigation and family circumstances were carefully considered, they did not justify a lesser or suspended sentence. The decision reinforces the principle that offences perverting the course of justice, especially involving sexual offences, warrant immediate custody to uphold the integrity of the justice system. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing sentencing principles.