Factual and Procedural Background
This was an Attorney General’s Reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 concerning whether the Offender’s sentence was unduly lenient. [1]
The Offender pleaded guilty to 10 counts of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. The offending involved repeated false allegations of rape against multiple men between 2013 and 2019. The remaining counts were ordered to lie on the file. [2]
The Crown Court sentenced the Offender to four and a half years’ imprisonment. The allegations led to arrests, investigations, significant personal harm to the alleged victims, and substantial expenditure of police resources. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether leave should be granted to refer the sentence as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. [1]
- Whether the sentence properly reflected the seriousness, duration, planning, number of allegations and victims, resulting harm, totality of the offending, mitigation, and guilty-plea discount. [12][13][14][15]
Arguments of the Parties
Solicitor General’s Submissions
- The individual offences were serious category A1 offending and warranted movement above the guideline starting point. [12]
- The offending involved sustained conduct, planning, extremely serious alleged conduct, eight separate false allegations, more than five and a half years, and ten victims. [12][13]
- The destruction of evidence by deleting messages was an additional serious feature in one count. [12]
- The appropriate sentence before personal mitigation and the guilty-plea reduction was said to be ten years’ imprisonment. [13]
Offender’s Submissions
- The sentencing judge had carefully considered the offending and had correctly applied the guideline range. [14]
- The conduct was unsophisticated and the Offender’s responsibility was substantially reduced by mental disorder or learning disability. [14]
- The Offender’s low IQ, neurodiversity, impulsivity and emotional dysregulation substantially reduced culpability. [16]
- Totality involved an evaluative sentencing discretion, and the sentence imposed was within the available range and was not unduly lenient. [15]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|
| R v Vine [2011] EWCA Crim 1860 | Earlier sentencing authority concerning comparable offending. | The case was cited in the defence sentencing note but provided no real assistance because it turned on its facts and predated the specific guideline. [17][18] |
| R v Costin [2018] EWCA Crim 1381 | Earlier sentencing authority concerning comparable offending. | The case was treated as fact-specific and predating the 2023 guideline. [17][18] |
| R v Beal [2019] EWCA Crim 665 | Earlier sentencing authority concerning comparable offending. | The case was treated as fact-specific and predating the 2023 guideline. [17][18] |
| R v C [2007] EWCA Crim 2551 | The wider public harm caused by false rape allegations. | It was cited as recognising that false allegations may undermine the effective prosecution of genuine rape complaints. [19] |
| R v Beeton [2008] EWCA Crim 1421; [2009] 1 Cr App R(S) 46 | False rape allegations may damage public confidence, complicate jury assessment, and increase the risk that guilty offenders avoid conviction. | The court relied on this principle in assessing harm beyond the individual victims. [19][20] |
| R v McKenning [2008] EWCA Crim 2301; [2009] 1 Cr App R(S) 106 | False rape allegations harm genuine rape victims and make rape more difficult to prove. | The court relied on this wider harm when assessing the seriousness of the offending. [19][21][22] |
| R v Day [2009] EWCA Crim 2445; [2010] 2 Cr App R(S) 12 | The wider consequences of false rape allegations. | It was included among the authorities recognising that such allegations affect genuine victims and the administration of justice. [19] |
| R v England [2010] EWCA Crim 1408; [2011] 1 Cr App R(S) 51 | The wider consequences of false rape allegations. | It was included among the authorities supporting the assessment of wider public harm. [19] |
| R v Palmer [2018] EWCA Crim 1972 | The wider consequences of false rape allegations. | It was included among the authorities supporting the assessment of harm to genuine complainants and the justice system. [19] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The applicable guideline placed the offending in category 1A, with a four-year starting point and a range of two to seven years. Relevant culpability factors included sustained conduct, planning or sophistication, and the seriousness of the underlying alleged offences; relevant harm factors included custody or arrest, reputational distress, and impact on the administration of justice. [23][24][25][26][27]
The Court of Appeal considered that most of the eight instances, viewed individually, warranted movement above the four-year starting point before mitigation and guilty-plea credit. Several allegations were repeated in telephone calls, police interviews and detailed ABE interviews, demonstrating sustained conduct. [28][29]
Although the offending was not highly sophisticated, it involved significant planning. Examples included arranging for a victim to be publicly arrested and making allegations after saying, “Watch what happens now.” The detailed accounts and the Offender’s stated desire to punish or hurt the men also supported an inference of forethought. [30]
The allegations concerned extremely serious conduct, including rape, multiple rapes, violence, threats and alleged group offending. The Court considered that such conduct, if true, would have attracted lengthy sentences. [31]
The Court rejected the submission that the Offender’s neurodivergence meant she would not have appreciated the consequences of her conduct. By the time of later allegations, she knew that earlier victims had been arrested and would have been aware of the harm caused. [32][33]
The harm was severe and widespread. Victims experienced arrest, investigation, reputational damage, relationship and employment consequences, mental-health effects, and the prolonged prospect of giving evidence at trial. The offending also caused substantial waste of police resources. [34][35]
The Court further recognised wider harm to genuine rape victims and the public interest. False allegations may affect jurors’ assessment of genuine complaints, impede convictions, and deter victims from reporting or pursuing allegations. [36][37][38]
The Offender’s low IQ and neurodiversity provided significant mitigation and reduced culpability, but their weight could not be overstated because the offending involved detailed inventions, persistence and planning. The Offender also knew that her conduct was criminal. [39]
Totality required a substantial uplift because there were eight separate instances over approximately five and a half years and ten victims suffered widespread and sometimes severe consequences. The earlier defence authorities did not materially assist because they were fact-specific and predated the 2023 guideline. [40][18]
Holding and Implications
Leave was granted, and the original sentence was held to be unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal quashed the sentence on each count and substituted seven years’ imprisonment on each count, with all sentences continuing to run concurrently. [41][42][43][44]
The direct consequence was an increase in the effective custodial sentence from four and a half years to seven years. The decision also applied the existing sentencing framework to the particular combination of repeated false allegations, multiple victims, planning, wider public harm and mitigation; no new precedent was set. [40][43][44]