R v Tunney

For sentencing an offence of doing acts intending to pervert the course of justice, the court must assess the seriousness of the underlying offence, the offender’s persistence, and the effect of the attempt on the course of justice. An unsuccessful false alibi does not remove the offence’s gravity, particularly where it concerns an alleged murder or manslaughter and is repeated over time. The sentence must nevertheless reflect all relevant mitigation and be proportionate to the individual conduct.

The appellant pleaded guilty at York Crown Court to doing acts intending to pervert the course of justice. He had supplied, and later maintained, a false account intended to provide Ashley Squires with an alibi for the period in which Mr Boffey was killed.

The sentencing judge imposed three years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed by leave of the single judge, contending that the sentence was excessive in light of his limited record, guilty plea, personal circumstances, lack of previous imprisonment, and the fact that the false alibi was unsuccessful.

The central issue was the proper sentence for a repeated but unsuccessful attempt to provide an alibi in connection with an offence of the utmost seriousness.

1. The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The sentence of three years’ imprisonment was excessive. It was quashed and replaced with a sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment.

2. The appropriate sentence for perverting the course of justice depends on three matters. First, the court must consider the seriousness of the substantive offence to which the conduct relates. Secondly, it must assess the offender’s persistence. Thirdly, it must consider the effect of the attempt upon the course of justice.

3. The first two matters were supported by Rayworth [2004] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 75. The court added that the actual effect of the attempted perversion was also material.

4. On the facts, the false alibi related to an alleged murder or manslaughter, which lay at the most serious end of the spectrum. The appellant repeated and persisted in the false account for a period, although he eventually ceased to maintain it. The attempt was unsuccessful, but that did not diminish the exceptional seriousness of the substantive offending to which it was directed.

5. Those features justified a substantial custodial sentence. Taking account of the appellant’s mitigation and late guilty plea, the proportionate sentence was two years and six months rather than three years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the sentence appeal to the extent of substituting two years and six months’ imprisonment for three years: [2006] EWCA Crim 2066.

• York Crown Court: on 4 April 2006, imposed three years’ imprisonment following the appellant’s guilty plea to doing acts intending to pervert the course of justice.