Nazir, R. v

Misconduct in public office by a police officer is serious. Public confidence in police officers, who exercise extensive powers and responsibilities, ordinarily requires an immediate custodial sentence where an officer exploits that trust.

Sentence must nevertheless reflect the exceptional personal circumstances of the offender. Where the loss of employment, financial and accommodation consequences, pre-existing stress and genuine remorse substantially mitigate an isolated criminal error of judgment, a short custodial term may be reduced while preserving the necessary deterrent and denunciatory effect of imprisonment.

The appellant, a serving police officer, pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to misconduct in a public office. He had obtained a fixed penalty notice issued by a probationer constable to the driver of a vehicle connected with his friend, intending to destroy it.

On 27 February 2003 he received three months’ imprisonment. He appealed, with leave of the single judge, on the ground that the term was excessive. The court considered the seriousness of abuse of police office alongside his good character, personal stress, remorse, and the severe consequences already flowing from conviction and loss of employment.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of three months’ imprisonment and substituted one month’s imprisonment.

2. The offence was serious because the appellant was a police officer. The public must be able to have confidence and trust in police officers, whose work carries extensive powers and responsibilities. An officer who exploits that trust must ordinarily receive a custodial sentence. The sentencing judge was therefore right to impose imprisonment.

3. The three-month term was nevertheless excessive. The appellant had already suffered the inevitable loss of his police employment, with financial loss and loss of accommodation. He was of good character, had been under stress arising from the breakdown of two marriages, and had expressed remorse.

4. In the exceptional circumstances, the essential sentencing feature was that imprisonment was imposed, rather than a term of three months. His conduct was a gross and criminal error of judgment, but one month’s imprisonment adequately reflected its seriousness and the need to maintain public confidence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted one month’s imprisonment for three months’ imprisonment.

• Southwark Crown Court: Following a guilty plea to misconduct in a public office on 10 January 2003, imposed three months’ imprisonment on 27 February 2003.