Beeton, R v

A false allegation of rape will almost inevitably require a custodial sentence. The sentence must nevertheless reflect the whole course of conduct, including the number of people falsely accused, persistence, the impact on those accused, and credit for a guilty plea. Comparable sentencing decisions assist the appellate court in deciding whether those aggravating features justify the term imposed. A substantial sentence may be required where repeated allegations have caused serious and lasting harm, but it must remain proportionate to the circumstances.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Chichester Crown Court to four counts of perverting the course of justice. Each count arose from a false allegation that a young man had raped her; the first allegation also implicated a second man. The allegations led to arrests, detention, intimate sampling and considerable distress to both men.

On 20 April 2007, the judge imposed four years’ imprisonment on each count, concurrently. The appellant appealed with leave of the single judge, contending that the total sentence was manifestly excessive in light of her guilty pleas, personal circumstances, psychiatric and psychological evidence, and comparable cases.

The central issue was whether the allegations involving two men and the persistent course of accusations justified a four-year sentence.

1. Appeal allowed. The four-year concurrent sentences were manifestly excessive. They were quashed and replaced by concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment.

2. False allegations of rape are intrinsically grave. They will almost inevitably attract custody because police must investigate them seriously, and because they can cause profound personal harm to those accused. They may also create a wider risk that genuine allegations will be viewed with undue suspicion.

3. The aggravating features were substantial. The first allegation implicated two men, and the appellant then made repeated accusations against one of them over several months. The allegations had a serious and enduring effect on both men, particularly the younger man, who was arrested repeatedly and subjected to intimate procedures.

4. The court also considered the appellant’s guilty pleas, previous good character, domestic circumstances, and psychiatric and cognitive evidence. That evidence did not explain or excuse her culpability, although it showed that imprisonment would be especially difficult for her.

5. Comparable cases confirmed that custody was appropriate. R v Fletcher [2005] EWCA Crim 3284, involving a two-year sentence after a guilty plea, was less serious because this case involved two accused persons and a sustained course of false allegations. Even allowing for those distinctions, the authorities and all the relevant circumstances showed that four years was too long.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Chichester: On 20 April 2007, imposed four years’ imprisonment on each of four counts of perverting the course of justice, to run concurrently, following guilty pleas.