Humble, R. v

Deliberate and carefully planned acts which pervert an investigation into grave offending may rank at the very highest level of seriousness, particularly where they divert substantial police resources and create a real risk of grave consequences. In such an exceptional case, personal mitigation and a long delay before prosecution may carry reduced weight.

An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence merely because it is severe. The sentence must be wrong in principle or clearly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Leeds Crown Court to four counts of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. Between 1978 and 1979, he sent letters and a tape recording falsely claiming responsibility for the Yorkshire Ripper murders. The communications led the police to concentrate substantial investigative resources on an innocent person with a Sunderland accent.

The Recorder imposed concurrent sentences of six years’ imprisonment on three counts and eight years on the fourth. The appellant appealed against sentence, relying principally on his guilty plea, remorse, the passage of more than 20 years, and personal mitigation. The central issue was whether the eight-year sentence was wrong in principle or clearly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the eight-year concurrent sentence was neither wrong in principle nor clearly excessive.
2. The offending was exceptionally serious. The appellant had carefully planned false communications during an investigation into a series of murders. Their intended and actual effect was to divert police resources towards an innocent person and away from the true offender. The court agreed with the Recorder that the offending lay at the very top of offences of perverting the course of justice.
3. The court rejected the suggestion that shortcomings in the original police investigation should mitigate sentence. Even if the true offender had been targeted earlier, the existence of convincing false claims of responsibility could have made a successful prosecution substantially more difficult.
4. The guilty plea had properly received credit. Its lateness justified limiting that credit. The long interval before prosecution and the appellant’s changed circumstances, including his alcohol dependency, were material but carried less weight because of the exceptional gravity, planning and potential consequences of the offences.
5. There was no guideline authority for sentence in this area. Sentencing required attention to the unusual seriousness of the conduct and its consequences. A very severe custodial sentence was therefore justified.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal against sentence was granted and the appeal was dismissed: [2006] EWCA Crim 2775.
• Crown Court at Leeds: The appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. He received concurrent sentences of six years’ imprisonment on counts 1–3 and eight years’ imprisonment on count 4.