May, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 24 at sentence, was convicted after pleading guilty at a Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing on 27 October 2025 of committing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice. At sentence on 8 December 2025 in the Crown Court in The City, Judge Harbage imposed 18 months' imprisonment (after 25% credit for plea). A restraining order was made. The sole ground advanced on this application for leave to appeal against sentence was that the custodial sentence should have been suspended because of the impact of immediate custody on the Appellant as the mother of an 18‑month old child and the consequences for her family support network.

The underlying facts, as found by the sentencing judge, were that the Appellant made a prolonged, detailed and false allegation of rape against three people (referred to below as Victim 1, Victim 2 and Victim 3), persisted with that account in a 143‑minute ABE interview and thereafter, causing significant investigative intrusion and severe harm to the three victims. The police investigation established alibis, CCTV and forensic evidence undermining the allegation; the matter was recorded as "no crime" and the Appellant was later charged on 15 August 2025 and pleaded guilty on 27 October 2025. There was a pre‑sentence report, psychiatric report and multiple character references describing domestic abuse, substance misuse history and current rehabilitation and caring responsibilities for the child. The judge treated culpability as level B (medium) under the Sentencing Council guideline and imposed custody, refusing suspension. The Registrar referred the application for leave to the Full Court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of immediate custody should have been suspended in light of the Appellant's personal mitigation (domestic abuse, mental health, rehabilitation prospects) and the impact on her dependent child and family.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle in concluding that appropriate punishment for this offence could only be achieved by immediate custody, such that suspension was inappropriate.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The custodial sentence should have been suspended because of (i) separation from her child, (ii) prospective loss of her accommodation, (iii) vulnerability in custody given mental health difficulties, and (iv) a high prospect of rehabilitation through probation‑provided courses.
• Submitted that, on a proportionality assessment, immediate custody was disproportionate overall when all mitigating factors and family consequences were taken into account.
• Provided updates: housing may remain available subject to rent payment; grandparents are primary carers but face serious work and financial difficulties and, if necessary, the grandmother may resign to provide care; the child had visited the Appellant in prison.
• Relied on the Sentencing Council's 2024 additional personal mitigation factor "Pregnancy, childbirth and postnatal care" and related guidance on impact on dependants for offenders on the cusp of custody.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the facts, the sentencing judge's findings and the Sentencing Council guideline for perverting the course of justice. It accepted the judge's factual conclusions: the Appellant's allegation was a prolonged, detailed and deliberate false account maintained through a lengthy ABE interview, causing substantial investigative intrusion and severe, ongoing harm to three innocent victims. The judge identified multiple level A (high culpability) factors (sustained conduct, planning, very serious underlying offence) and some level C (lower culpability) factors (coercion/domestic abuse and reduced responsibility from mental disorder), ultimately assessing culpability at level B (medium).

The Court emphasised authority establishing that offences of this kind ordinarily require immediate custody and that only a high degree of exceptionality justifies suspension. It relied on R v Feve, Abdulwahad and R v Graham to explain that the Imposition guideline requires the sentencer to weigh listed factors for and against suspension, but that the factor that "appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody" will in most such cases outweigh mitigating considerations (including rehabilitation prospects and family impact). The Court found the sentencing judge had correctly balanced aggravating and mitigating factors, had properly applied the guideline, and had sensibly concluded that the seriousness of the offence meant immediate custody was necessary to achieve appropriate punishment. The Court saw no error in that exercise of sentencing discretion.

Holding and Implications

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE REFUSED

Holding: The Full Court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence, concluding the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive and that suspension was not appropriate.

Implications: The direct effect is that the 18‑month custodial sentence (after plea credit) stands and is not suspended. The decision applies established principles that perverting the course of justice ordinarily attracts immediate custody; the Court did not purport to set new precedent beyond applying those authorities and the Sentencing Council guideline.