McKenning, R v

A knowingly false allegation of rape, made to avoid personal consequences and maintained during a police investigation, is a very serious offence of perverting the course of public justice. Sentence must reflect both the acute harm to the innocent person accused and the wider damage to the administration of justice. False allegations may make genuine allegations more difficult to investigate and prove, while an innocent suspect may face grave consequences before the truth emerges. Mitigation, including a prompt guilty plea, previous good character, remorse and a low risk of reoffending, does not prevent an immediate custodial sentence where the allegation was sustained and caused serious harm.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court to doing an act tending or intended to pervert the course of public justice. She had falsely alleged that a man with whom she had had consensual sexual intercourse had raped her. She maintained the allegation during the police investigation until confronted with evidence that it was false.

The man was arrested, detained, searched, medically examined and released on bail. The investigation lasted about three months before the applicant admitted that she had lied. She received two years’ imprisonment.

Her application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence was delayed by an error in counsel’s chambers. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of her guilty plea, good character, remorse, immaturity and low assessed risk of further offending.

1. The court granted the extension of time but refused leave to appeal against sentence. The two-year sentence fell within the appropriate range for this very serious offence.

2. The applicant’s false allegation had caused grave individual harm. The innocent man was arrested for rape, detained for more than a day, strip-searched, medically examined and placed on bail. Although the investigation eventually established his innocence, he endured an ordeal lasting about three months. The applicant had repeated opportunities to withdraw the allegation but did not do so.

3. The offence also caused wider harm to the administration of justice. Rape allegations require sensitive and difficult investigative and prosecutorial decisions. A false allegation can be especially difficult for an innocent suspect to refute and may affect juries’ assessment of evidence in genuine cases. The misuse of protective and investigative measures intended for genuine complainants was a material aggravating feature.

4. The court endorsed the sentencing judge’s approach. It took account of the guilty plea, previous good character, remorse, immaturity, alcohol consumption and low risk of reoffending. Those matters did not displace the seriousness arising from the sustained false allegation and its effects on both the accused man and public justice.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Extension of time granted; application for leave to appeal against the two-year sentence refused.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 17 April 2008 the applicant pleaded guilty to doing an act tending or intended to pervert the course of public justice. On 9 May 2008 she was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.