Dawkins, R. v

A sentence for attempting to pervert the course of justice by lying during a murder investigation is not manifestly excessive where the lies had the potential to impede the identification and arrest of the person responsible. The gravity of the offending may be assessed as high even if the lies did not in fact seriously impede the investigation. The offender’s age may carry limited weight where previous convictions show familiarity with criminal investigation and justice.

The appellant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of attempting to do acts tending to and intended to pervert the course of justice. During the investigation into Tracy Meade’s murder, he falsely denied that Kelly Ross had been the other person in the car shortly before the killing and falsely claimed not to know where she lived.

He later admitted the lies, but maintained at trial that he had not acted with the requisite intention. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. By leave of the single judge, he appealed against sentence, contending that the lies had not seriously impeded the investigation and that he was 19 at the time.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of three years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. The offending was serious because the appellant lied during a murder investigation in order to protect the person who had committed the murder. His lies concerned the identity and whereabouts of a person with whom he had been present shortly before the death.

3. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the offence as towards the upper end of the scale. The lies had the potential, at an early and critical stage of the investigation, to divert the police from the true offender. It did not matter that the investigation was not shown to have been seriously impeded in fact.

4. The absence of legal advice at the first urgent interview did not assist the appellant. Nor did his age require a reduction in sentence: his numerous previous convictions and prior custody meant that he was not unsophisticated in criminal investigation or criminal justice.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant’s appeal against his three-year sentence.
• Central Criminal Court: the appellant was convicted on 14 December 2007 and, on 7 February 2008, sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for attempting to do acts tending to and intended to pervert the course of justice.