Nazifi, R. v

A person who deliberately makes a false rape complaint commits a grave offence against the administration of justice. An immediate custodial sentence is invariably required, notwithstanding personal mitigation. Personal circumstances may, however, affect the length of the custodial term.

In assessing duration, the court may compare analogous sentencing decisions, while giving proper weight to aggravating features. A false allegation made to compel repayment of money is aggravated by its financial motive and may justify a sentence above the usual comparable range.

The appellant made a detailed but false allegation that a man had raped her and stolen £1,250. The allegation caused his arrest and approximately 20 hours in custody. After he repaid a loan, she withdrew the complaint and later admitted that she had fabricated it to recover the money.

Having pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice, she was sentenced by His Honour Judge King to 15 months’ imprisonment. A pre-sentence report recommended a community order and medical evidence recorded depression and anxiety. She appealed against sentence, contending that comparable authorities supported a substantially shorter term.

1. The appeal was allowed. The court quashed the sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment and substituted six months’ imprisonment.

2. Per Mitting J, the established line of authority, culminating in Merritt [2006] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 105, showed that an immediate custodial sentence is invariably required for this kind of false complaint. That requirement applied regardless of the offender’s personal circumstances. Those circumstances remained relevant to the proper length of custody.

3. The appellant’s early guilty plea, previous good character, parenthood, and medical condition therefore did not make a community order appropriate. They were relevant to reducing the length of the custodial sentence.

4. The facts were broadly comparable with Gregson [1993] 14 Cr.App.R (S) 85, where a nine-month sentence had been reduced to four months, and with the four-month sentence in Merritt. The appellant’s financial purpose was, however, an aggravating feature. She had used the false complaint to recover money and the offence therefore had some characteristics of blackmail.

5. That aggravation made a four-month sentence insufficient, but the original 15-month term was excessive in light of the appellant’s circumstances. Six months’ imprisonment met the justice of the case.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2006] EWCA Crim 1743, the court allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the 15-month term, and substituted six months’ imprisonment.

• Sentencing court: On 27 March 2006, His Honour Judge King imposed 15 months’ imprisonment following the appellant’s early guilty plea.