Knight, R. v

A custodial sentence for perverting the course of justice may be necessary because the offence undermines the criminal justice system. Its length must nevertheless reflect the actual consequences of the deception. The absence of an innocent person placed at risk is a relevant mitigating feature. A defendant is also entitled to appropriate credit for a guilty plea.

R v Knight [2007] EWCA Crim 149 concerned an appeal against sentence. The appellant had impersonated his brother at a police station, causing an arrest warrant to be executed and then receiving sentences for his brother’s assault and failure to surrender.

At Reading Crown Court, following a guilty plea to doing an act tending or intending to pervert the course of justice, he received 12 months’ imprisonment. He appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive, having regard to his mitigation, the absence of an innocent victim, and his guilty plea.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The court quashed the 12-month sentence and substituted a sentence of six months’ imprisonment.

2. A custodial sentence was appropriate. Perverting the course of justice undermines the criminal justice system and, in this case, required a sentence of imprisonment despite the appellant’s personal mitigation.

3. The sentencing judge had imposed an excessive term. In fixing sentence, the court had to recognise that no innocent person had been put at risk. The deception did not have the feature present in many such offences, where an innocent person is arrested or otherwise endangered.

4. The appellant was also entitled to credit for his guilty plea. Taking those matters together, six months’ imprisonment was the appropriate sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in part and substituted six months’ imprisonment.
• Reading Crown Court: On 17 November 2006, imposed 12 months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea to doing an act tending or intending to pervert the course of justice.