Pike-Williams, R. v

Unauthorised access by a police station reception officer to confidential police information did not pass the custodial threshold where the searches were motivated by idle curiosity, the information was not disclosed, and no harm to the police service was intended. A sentencing comparison with a more serious breach of police trust, which had attracted a reduced sentence of one month, compelled that conclusion. Where the appellant had already served virtually all of an excessive custodial sentence, a substantial community sentence was inappropriate. A conditional discharge was substituted.

The appellant, a Metropolitan Police station reception officer of previous good character, pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to misconduct in a public office. Between December 2001 and August 2002, she used secure police terminals to obtain confidential information concerning friends and associates.

Her written basis of plea stated that the searches arose from idle curiosity. She neither disclosed the information nor intended or foresaw harm to the Metropolitan Police. On 13 July 2004, His Honour Judge Dodgson imposed two months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence after serving almost one month.

The central issue was whether the offending crossed the custodial threshold and, if not, what substituted sentence was appropriate in light of the time already served.

Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of two months’ imprisonment and substituted a conditional discharge for 12 months.

1. The judge was entitled to recognise that unauthorised access to confidential police information could cause harm to the police service by undermining confidence in the handling of sensitive information. That potential harm did not, however, determine the proper sentence on the appellant’s agreed basis of plea.

2. The appellant’s searches were motivated by idle curiosity. She did not pass on the information and neither intended nor foresaw harm to the police service. The court treated Nazir [2003] EWCA Crim 901 as compelling the conclusion that these circumstances did not pass the custodial threshold. In that authority, a police officer’s breach of trust had actual or intended consequences, yet the custodial sentence was reduced to one month.

3. Had the matter come before the court at trial, a substantial community punishment order would have been appropriate. That course would have been unsuitable because the appellant had served virtually all of the custodial sentence before the appeal was heard. A 12-month conditional discharge was therefore the appropriate substituted disposal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the two-month sentence of imprisonment, and substituted a conditional discharge for 12 months.
• Southwark Crown Court: following a guilty plea to misconduct in a public office, imposed two months’ imprisonment on 13 July 2004.