S & Ors, R v

An offender convicted of perverting the course of justice must be sentenced for that offending, rather than as if convicted of the uncharged substantive crime which the offending sought to facilitate. The connection with serious criminality, including large-scale drug trafficking, may nevertheless materially aggravate the offence because it shows the harm intended to the administration of justice.

Sentencing must reflect the total criminality of separate offences and the principle of totality. Distinct conspiracies may justify consecutive sentences, particularly where they seek to discredit an investigating officer. A guilty plea and mitigation remain relevant, but their effect may be moderated so that the overall sentence properly reflects all offending.

Four appellants appealed sentences imposed at Kingston Crown Court after guilty pleas to offences of perverting, or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice. The first appellant, a solicitor, had assisted false claims to cash connected with a major drug dealer and later conspired to discredit an investigating officer and another solicitor. He also admitted offences of fraud on the Legal Services Commission, contempt of court and false accounting.

Sehra and Abdullahi gave false accounts for £15,000 found on Abdullahi. Sehra also joined the later conspiracy to discredit the investigator. Azam made false claims to two sums of cash. The principal issues were whether the sentences had proceeded on an impermissible basis concerning drug dealing, and whether they were excessive.

1. The court allowed the appeals of the first appellant, Azam and Abdullahi in part, by reducing their sentences. Sehra’s appeal was dismissed.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat it as seriously aggravating that the conspiracies assisted a major drug dealer to retain criminal proceeds and sought to discredit those investigating him. He erred, however, by using the sentencing levels for large-scale drug dealers as his guide. The appellants had neither been charged with nor admitted large-scale drug supply. Their criminality was the deliberate undermining of the administration of justice: Walsh and Nightingale [1993] 14 Crim App R (S) 671 and Land and Khaliq [2006] EWCA Crim 2856.

3. The conspiracy to discredit the investigating officer was exceptionally serious. Its success could have frustrated this investigation and compromised other investigations involving that officer. It was capable of attracting a consecutive sentence. In the first appellant’s case, the sustained and corrupt misuse of a solicitor’s position, in order to assist serious criminality, justified a substantial deterrent element. Sentences for grave conspiracies to pervert the course of justice can reach double figures: see Jones [2008] EWCA Crim 348 and King [1999] 2 Crim App R (S) 284.

4. The court applied totality. Although it could not increase the separate 18-month sentence for the first appellant’s conspiracy to defraud the Legal Services Commission, it could take that offence into account when deciding the appropriate reduction for guilty plea and mitigation on the perverting counts.

5. The first appellant’s concurrent sentences for the three conspiracies to pervert the course of justice were reduced to eight and a half years. With the consecutive 18 months for conspiracy to obtain property by deception, his total sentence became ten years. Azam’s sentence was reduced to three and a half years and Abdullahi’s to three years. Sehra’s total sentence of six years was upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Sentences reduced for the first appellant, Azam and Abdullahi; Sehra’s sentence upheld.
• Kingston Crown Court: Sentenced the appellants following guilty pleas to offences including perverting, and conspiracy to pervert, the course of justice.